United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.H., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Houston, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0478 

Issued: July 1, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On December 29, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal of an August 22, 2014 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act1 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction to consider the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained 

an emotional condition due to factors of her federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 53-year-old distribution supervisor, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) on September 18, 2013 alleging an emotional condition sustained in the 

performance of duty. She asserted that she was subjected to harassment and retaliation on the 

part of management and as a result became depressed. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

By letter dated October 1, 2013, OWCP advised appellant that she needed to submit 

additional information in support of her claim. It requested that appellant describe in detail the 

employment-related conditions or incidents which she believed contributed to her emotional 

condition. 

In a September 18, 2013 statement, received by OWCP on October 28, 2013, appellant 

alleged that management subjected her to harassment and treated her in a discriminatory manner 

for approximately three to four years. She asserted that the employing establishment made her 

work alone in areas to which other employees had not been assigned and made her work the 

floor on weekends, despite the fact that she asked management not to assign her weekend work. 

Appellant alleged that these actions on the part of management were retaliatory. She reported 

that she had filed Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) claims in response to the harassment 

and retaliation that she was subjected to. Appellant asserted that this harassment and retaliation 

created a very stressful work environment. In addition, she alleged that there were incidents in 

which some of her employees had been on drugs and had engaged in physical altercations with 

her, other managers, and the postal police. Appellant also alleged that there were situations 

where employees had brought guns onto the postal premises. She further alleged that 

management harassed her about work performance after failing to provide her with sufficient 

staff to complete her assignments. Appellant asserted that as a result of these situations she 

experienced problems with sleeping, eating, and her interpersonal relationships. 

In a June 26, 2013 report, received by OWCP on October 31, 2013, Dr. Ramesh Parikh, a 

Board-certified psychiatrist, advised that appellant had been off work since June 2013 because 

her job had become too stressful. He related that she was irritable, moody, sad, easily angered, 

and had difficulty concentrating. Appellant reported to him that some of these stresses began 

three or four years ago. She also informed him that management required her to work nights 

supervising up to 50 people, which led to her gaining considerable weight and undergoing lap 

band surgery. Dr. Parikh advised that appellant was involved in a work incident in which one of 

her charges threatened her with a gun, which was essentially her breaking point. Appellant had 

to take leave from work and she remained off work for six months. She related that she returned 

to work for six weeks; however, another incident occurred in which another one of her 

employees became violent while using illegal drugs, though the violence was not directed toward 

her. Dr. Parikh reported that she continued working until she could no longer function at the 

workplace. Appellant was taken off of work for six months, until October 2012. Dr. Parikh 

asserted that she felt overwhelmed and unable to adjust to the work environment, becoming 

extremely anxious, agitated, getting loud at times, and having crying episodes and yelling at 

people. He opined that, as a result of this work-related stress, appellant began eating more and 

gaining weight, and she experienced chest pain to the extent that she feared having a heart attack. 

Dr. Parikh diagnosed major depressive disorder, severe anxiety disorder, and severe 

avoidant and schizoid personality. He concluded that that appellant’s work stressors had been 

gradually building up to the point where she was unable to cope with work pressures or perform 

and function at work. Dr. Parikh opined that all of her current mental stressors were the direct 

result of the pressures that she was experiencing at work. He advised that the manner in which 

she was treated by her supervisors and the manner in which she was responding had aggravated 

her preexisting psychological stressors and led him to conclude that her current condition was 

directly related to the pressures of her job at the employing establishment. 
3

In response to OWCP’s October 1, 2013 developmental letter, appellant submitted an 

October 17, 2013 statement in which she made the following allegations: 

(1) In September 2010 one of her employees, J.J., brought a gun to work. This 

was very disturbing to her because she had to give him a notice about him being 

on disability. The employee allegedly told her “I know what to do with you,” and 

the postal police found empty beer cans and a gun in his car. She felt threatened 

by this incident and did not believe that management handled it properly; 

(2) On January 25, 2011 employee F.J. was on illegal drugs and became violent, 

fighting with her, a distribution manager, and the postal police. This was very 

stressful for her; 

(3) She was twice required to work the entire first floor on Saturday and Sunday 

nights (November 18 to 19, 2012 and April 7 to 8, 2013). This involved five 

different sections of the mail distribution units, an assignment which exceeded her 

capacities. She either had to supervise all of these units by herself or sometimes 

train someone to work the areas to assist her. She asserted that this was extremely 

stressful because she lacked sufficient employees and equipment to run the area, 

yet she was still required to meet the dispatch mail quota and numbers and make 

deadlines. In addition, on many occasions management personnel said demeaning 

and degrading things to her and cursed and yelled at her. She asserted that 

management had since realized that this was too much responsibility for one 

person and had since assigned some additional employees to help to work that 

area. 

(4) There were numerous occasions when management disciplined her or 

threatened her with discipline, allegedly without sufficient cause. On January 14, 

2012 she received a Letter of Warning. She appealed and the action was later 

rescinded. On September 19, 2012 appellant had to be hospitalized due to panic 

attacks which she attributed to work-related stress. She was off work on 

September 20 and 21, 2012 and thought she was having a heart attack. On 

October 18, 2012 the employing establishment denied her request to attend a 

family funeral which was scheduled initially on her off day. She alleged that 

management intentionally changed the leave schedule in order to force employees 

to readjust their days off, an action which inconvenienced many people and was 

done out of meanness and spite. On November 23 and 25, 2012 management 

conducted pre-disciplinary interviews, but she was not disciplined. She believed 

that these interviews were conducted simply to harass her. On January 24, 2013, 

she received a Letter of Absence Inquiry from management. She believed that 

management intentionally listed the wrong dates in the letter in an attempt to 

confuse her, which is typical of the harassment management regularly perpetrates 

toward her.2

 She related that she was disciplined for missing a dispatch and was 

not provided an interview to submit her side of the story. 

 2

 Appellant alleged that this letter requested documentation to support time off beginning January 13, 2013, 

although her absence began January 17, 2013. 
4

(5) On February 22, 2013 a manager granted appellant leave without pay 

(LWOP) instead of approving the paid sick leave she had requested. This 

prevented her from receiving her regular pay, in addition to her holiday pay, 

which made her go to another manager to persuade him to change her pay status; 

(6) On March 11, 2013 three managers were talking in a derogatory manner 

toward her, a conversation which was broadcast over the employing 

establishment’s radio system. This was an incident which embarrassed and 

humiliated her; 

(7) On April 12, 2013 a manager talked in a derogatory manner toward her and 

yelled at her; 

(8) On June 3, 2013 two managers called her into the office and harassed her 

about staffing; 

(9) She had been subjected to disrespectful treatment and harassment by 

management since October 18, 2012. This resulted in the deterioration of her 

mental and emotional health. She experienced crying episodes, sleeplessness, and 

developed an eating disorder which caused her to undergo lap band surgery. The 

employing establishment created a hostile work environment and appellant feared 

for her safety and her life. She admitted having “an attendance issue,” but only 

because of all of the harassment she continually received and the stress to which 

she was subjected. 

In a November 12, 2013 statement, Ms. Samika N. Collins, a manager of distribution 

operations (MDO) controverted appellant’s claim and rebutted her assertions. With regard to 

appellant’s statement that employees had brought guns onto the postal premises and that she had 

been threatened and was caused stress by these incidents, management advised that on 

August 28, 2010 the postal police noticed a gun in an employee’s car. This employee received a 

notice of removal on October 3, 2010, but never threatened a supervisor or employee, including 

appellant. Other than this incident, Ms. Collins asserted that the employing establishment was 

not aware of any other employee who had been disciplined for this type of misconduct and that 

there was no substantiation for her allegations. 

The employing establishment rebutted her account of the November 14, 2010 incident 

involving the employee’s use of illegal drugs. Ms. Collins asserted that during the six months 

appellant took off from work allegedly due to her emotional condition, appellant was actually 

undergoing plastic surgery. Appellant was conducting an investigative interview with this 

employee after he requested sick leave because of his illness and he did not want to fill out the 

proper paperwork. She contacted an MDO who requested his time card. When the employee 

refused to provide it, the MDO called the postal police and an altercation ensued between the 

recalcitrant employee and postal police. There was no violence toward appellant or the MDO 

since the MDO had taken control over the incident. The employee received a notice of removal 

on March 4, 2011 and was removed on November 30, 2011. Ms. Collins asserted that 

management had a zero tolerance policy when it came to dealing with such disturbances. 
5

Ms. Collins noted that appellant alleged that she was harassed by several managers, in 

particular, R.I., but failed to provide any substantiation or corroboration for any alleged, specific 

incidents of harassment and failed to identify which managers were harassing her other than R.I. 

She further asserted that many of the periods for which she claimed harassment were not 

consistent with its attendance records.3 With regard to her allegations of being overburdened by 

insufficient staff and being forced to work weekends, Ms. Collins reported that she was not given 

any responsibilities above and beyond those assigned to other supervisors who performed similar 

tasks. She further advised that there is no mail delivered on Sunday morning and that the 

majority of postal employees are not at work during the weekend. Ms. Collins also noted that 

appellant had five hours of sick leave and a negative 64 hours of annual leave. 

By decision dated March 26, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she 

failed to establish any compensable factor of employment and thus fact of injury was not 

established. It found that the incidents of harassment did not occur as alleged, as she provided 

no evidence corroborating or substantiating these alleged incidents. 

By letter dated May 15, 2014, appellant requested reconsideration. She reiterated her 

previous allegations and asserted that she had provided documentation showing that she had 

been disciplined unjustly by the employing establishment. 

In an April 2, 2014 report, Dr. Parikh reiterated that appellant continued to focus on her 

work issues. He related that appellant was recently asked to contact the employee assistance 

program due to her problems with coworkers. Appellant was preoccupied with how her coworkers were making fun of her, hiding her stuff, and harassing her by engaging in acts like 

killing insects on her station. Dr. Parikh advised that when appellant confronted another 

supervisor who had taken one of her employees, her manager yelled at her instead and she 

became so upset that she sent an email complaining about this harassment. He reiterated his 

previous diagnoses and his opinion that her conditions were caused by work factors. 

In an April 10, 2014 report, Dr. Parikh reiterated his previous findings and conclusions in 

addition to appellant’s accounts of work-related incidents in which management allegedly acted 

inappropriately and caused her stress and anxiety. Appellant did not submit any additional 

factual evidence in support of her request for reconsideration. 

By decision dated August 22, 2014, OWCP denied modification of the March 26, 2014 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is 

somehow related to an employee’s employment. In the case of Lillian Cutler,

4

 the Board 

 3

 The employing establishment advised that its records showed that appellant was off work intermittently from 

October 2012 to June 6, 2013. It asserted that she was out due to scheduled and unscheduled absences for the 

following periods in which she also alleged harassment: December 29, 2012 through January 5, 2013; January 17 to 

February 4, 2013; March 16 to 31, 2013; April 18, 2013; and May 18 to 19, 2013. 

4

 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 
6

explained that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a 

compensable emotional condition arising under FECA.5

 There are situations where an injury or 

illness has some connection with the employment but nevertheless does not come within 

coverage under FECA.6

 When an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying out his or 

her employment duties and the medical evidence establishes that the disability resulted from an 

emotional reaction to such situation, the disability is generally regarded as due to an injury 

arising out of and in the course of employment. This is true when the employee’s disability 

results from his or her emotional reaction to a special assignment or other requirement imposed 

by the employing establishment or by the nature of the work.7 In contrast, a disabling condition 

resulting from an employee’s feelings of job insecurity per se is not sufficient to constitute a 

person injury sustained in the performance of duty within the meaning of FECA. Thus disability 

is not covered when it results from an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force, nor is disability 

covered when it results from such factors as an employee’s frustration in not being permitted to 

work in a particular environment or to hold a particular position.8

Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s 

employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than the regular or specially 

assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA.9

 Where the evidence 

demonstrates that the employing establishment either erred or acted abusively in discharging its 

administrative or personnel responsibilities, such action will be considered a compensable 

employment factor.10 A claimant must support his or her allegations with probative and reliable 

evidence. Personal perceptions alone are insufficient to establish an employment-related 

emotional condition.11 

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, 

there must be evidence that harassment or discrimination did, in fact, occur. Mere perceptions of 

harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA. Unsubstantiated allegations of 

harassment or discrimination are not determinative of whether such harassment or discrimination 

occurred. To establish entitlement to benefits, a claimant must establish a factual basis for the 

claim by supporting his or her allegations with probative and reliable evidence.12

 

 5 Supra note 1 

6 See Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 136 (1999). 

7 Supra note 4. 

8 Id. 

9 Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004). 

10 Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001). See Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 

ECAB 566 (1991). 

11 Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

12 Alice M. Washington, 46 ECAB 382 (1994). 
7

ANALYSIS 

Appellant has alleged an emotional condition due to being overworked due to staffing 

shortages. Pursuant to Cutler13 this allegation could constitute a compensable employment 

factor if appellant establishes that her regular job duties or a special assignment caused an 

emotional condition. The Board has held that overwork, when substantiated by sufficient factual 

information to corroborate appellant’s account of events, may be a compensable factor of 

employment.14 The Board finds, however, that appellant submitted no evidence supporting her 

allegation that she was unable to complete her supervisory duties due to a staffing shortage. 

Without evidence substantiating the allegation, appellant has failed to meet her burden of proof 

to establish a compensable factor of employment under Cutler.

15 As appellant did not otherwise 

attribute her claimed condition to particular duties performed on particular dates, she has not 

established an employment factor under Cutler.

16

Appellant further attributed her emotional condition to stress caused by staffing 

shortages. In McEuen,

17 the Board held that an employee’s emotional reaction to administrative 

actions or personnel matters is not covered under FECA as such matters pertain to procedures 

and requirements of the employing establishment and do not bear a direct relation to the work 

required of the employee. The Board noted, however, that coverage under FECA would attach if 

the facts surrounding the administrative or personnel action established error or abuse by 

employing establishment superiors. Absent evidence of such error or abuse, the resulting 

emotional condition must be considered self-generated and not employment generated. In 

determining whether the employing establishment erred or acted abusively, the Board has 

examined whether the employing establishment acted reasonably.18

Appellant has provided no evidence supporting for her allegations sufficient to establish 

error or abuse in an administrative action under McEuen. Regarding her allegations that 

management did not provide her sufficient staff to complete the workload, appellant did not 

provide any evidence that the employing establishment acted in an abusive or unreasonable 

manner in this regard. Appellant asserted that she lacked sufficient employees and equipment to 

run the area, yet she was still required to meet the dispatch mail quota and numbers in order to 

make deadlines. However, she has not submitted evidence regarding the necessary staffing 

levels, nor has she described any unreasonable actions by management which prevented proper 

staffing.19 

 13 Supra note 4. 

14 See Bobbie D. Daly, 53 ECAB 691 (2002); T.M., Docket No. 15-1774 (issued January 20, 2016). 

15 K.S., Docket No. 15-1426 (issued December 29, 2015). 

16 Supra note 4. 

17 See Thomas D. McEuen, supra note 10. 

18 See G.C., Docket No. 15-1231 (issued February 2, 2016). 

19 Georgia F. Kennedy, 35 ECAB 1151 (1984). 
8

Appellant has also provided insufficient evidence to establish that the employing 

establishment acted unreasonably or committed error in discharging its administrative duties 

with regard to her work assignments. She alleged that she was twice required to work the entire 

first floor on Saturday and Sunday nights, which was comprised of five different sections of the 

mail distribution units. These allegations were not substantiated. Appellant has not provided 

any additional information or corroborating evidence, such as witness statements, regarding the 

circumstances of her work assignments so as to establish the context under which they were 

made. Ms. Collins reported that appellant was not given any responsibilities above and beyond 

those assigned to other supervisors who performed similar tasks. She also noted that there was 

no mail delivered on Sunday morning and that the majority of postal employees are not at work 

during the weekend. Appellant did not submit any evidence to substantiate that any of her work 

assignments were in error or were abusive. 

Regarding appellant’s allegation that she developed stress due to the uncertainty of her 

job duties and her insecurity about maintaining her position, the Board has previously held that a 

claimant’s job insecurity is not a compensable factor of employment under FECA.20 The Board 

has held that an employee’s dissatisfaction with perceived poor management constitutes 

frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a particular 

position and is not compensable under FECA.21 

Although the handling of disciplinary actions is generally related to the employment, it is 

an administrative function of the employing establishment.22 The Board notes that appellant 

asserted that several of the disciplinary actions taken by management, including letters of 

warning, predisciplinary interviews, and letters of absence of inquiry were either rescinded or not 

fully processed by the employing establishment. However, the mere fact that personnel actions 

were later modified or rescinded does not, in and of itself, establish error or abuse.23 The Board 

finds that appellant has failed to establish error or abuse with regard to her allegation that the 

employing establishment acted improperly in issuing her letters of warning, letters of absence 

inquiry and predisciplinary interviews. As appellant has failed to show that management’s 

actions demonstrated error or abuse on the part of management, they are not compensable.24 

The Board similarly notes that matters pertaining to leave use are generally not covered 

under the Act as they pertain to administrative actions of the employing establishment and not to 

the regular or specially assigned duties the employee was hired to perform.25 Appellant has 

provided no substantiation for her assertions that management’s handling of leave was arbitrary 

or unfair. Ms. Collins reported that as of November 12, 2013 appellant had a balance of 5 hours 

of sick leave and negative 64 hours of annual leave, indicating that she had been awarded ample 

 20 See Artice Dotson, 42 ECAB 754, 758 (1990); Allen C. Godfrey, 37 ECAB 334, 337-38 (1986). 

21 See Michael Thomas Plante, 44 ECAB 510, 515 (1993). 

22 See Janet I. Jones, 47 ECAB 345 (1996).

23 Supra note 21. 

24 Id. 

25 Elizabeth Pinero, 46 ECAB 123 (1994). 
9

leave for numerous periods. Appellant admitted that she had an attendance problem in her 

October 2013 statement. Thus, the Board finds that as appellant has failed to show that these 

actions amounted to error or abuse on the part of management, they are not compensable. 

Appellant alleged that management erred by failing to deal appropriately with the 

incident in which an employee allegedly brought a loaded gun to the workplace and the incident 

in which an employee under the influence of drugs became defiant, unruly, and in engaged in a 

violent confrontation with management. These assertions were refuted by Ms. Collins in her 

November 12, 2013 statement. Ms. Collins advised that on August 28, 2010 a postal policeman 

noticed a gun and two empty beer cans in an employee’s car and that this employee consequently 

received a notice of removal on October 3, 2010. She asserted, contrary to appellant’s assertion, 

that the employee did not threaten appellant or any other employee. Ms. Collins also rebutted 

appellant’s assertion that employees brought guns to the workplace, stating that no other 

incidents had occurred in which employees were found to have guns on the premises or were 

disciplined for this type of conduct. In addition, she rebutted her account of the November 14, 

2010 incident involving the unruly employee under the influence of illegal drugs. Appellant 

alleged that she was interviewing an employee who claimed to have an illness which required 

time off who requested sick leave, but refused to fill out the proper paperwork. She asserted that 

the employee became hostile, violent, and started a physical altercation with her. Ms. Collins, 

however, reported that appellant contacted a superior who called the postal police. An 

altercation thereafter ensued between the employee and the postal police. Ms. Collins asserted 

that appellant was not involved in this physical altercation because the supervisor took control of 

the situation. She reported that management had a zero tolerance policy with regard to such 

incidents, which was reflected when it issued a notice of removal on March 4, 2011 to the unruly 

employee and removed him on November 30, 2011. Ms. Collins also asserted that during the six 

months off from work referenced by Dr. Parikh, in which appellant was allegedly disabled due to 

her emotional condition, she was actually undergoing plastic surgery. Verbal altercations and 

difficult relationships with coworkers and supervisors/managers, when sufficiently detailed and 

supported by the record, may constitute compensable factors of employment.26 However, this 

does not imply that every ostensibly abusive or threatening statement uttered in the workplace 

will give rise to coverage under FECA. For appellant to prevail on her claim, she must support 

her allegations with specificity and reliable evidence. The Board finds that appellant’s 

statements and actions are not proven with specific dates and times and as such are not 

sufficiently established as true. 

The Board finds that these allegations on the part of appellant were refuted by 

Ms. Collins’ responses. Ms. Collins sufficiently addressed each of her allegations and 

demonstrated that management acted appropriately in its administrative capacity with regard to 

each of these situations which arose in the work environment.27 

 26 L.M., Docket No. 13-267 (issued November 15, 2013). 

27 The evidence submitted by an employing establishment on the basis of their records will prevail over the 

assertions from the claimant unless such assertions are supported by documentary evidence. See generally Sue A. 

Sedgwick, 45 ECAB 211, 218 n.4 (1993); 
10

Appellant has also not established her allegations that management engaged in a pattern 

of harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. She asserted that her problems begin around 

October 18, 2012, when management began to subject her to disrespectful treatment and 

harassment. Appellant alleged that on March 11, 2013 three managers were talking in a 

derogatory manner toward her, a conversation which was broadcast over the employing 

establishment’s radio system; that on April 12, 2013 a manager talked in a derogatory manner 

toward her and yelled at her; and that on June 3, 2013 two managers called appellant into the 

office and harassed her about staffing. She alleged that these incidents and others created a 

hostile work environment. Appellant has also asserted that she was harassed in retaliation of 

EEO claims she has filed. However, these assertions are not supported by the record. The 

primary reason for requiring factual evidence from the claimant in support of her allegations of 

harassment in the workplace is to establish a basis in fact for the contentions made, as opposed to 

mere perceptions of the claimant which in turn may be fully examined and evaluated by OWCP 

and the Board.28 Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that she was harassed 

by management or treated in a discriminatory manner.29 Mere perceptions of harassment or 

discrimination are not compensable; a claimant must establish a basis in fact for the claim by 

supporting her allegations with probative and reliable evidence.30 

The Board has reviewed all of appellant’s allegations of harassment, abuse, and 

mistreatment on the part of management, and finds that while she disapproved of how the 

employing establishment managed the workplace, this did not rise to the level of a compensable 

act. Appellant’s allegations constitute mere perceptions or generally stated assertions of 

dissatisfaction with a certain superior at work which do not support her claim for an emotional 

condition.31 She has not submitted evidence sufficient to establish that the employing 

establishment engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation toward her or created a hostile 

workplace environment. 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a compensable work factor. For this 

reason, the medical evidence will not be considered.32 The Board will affirm the August 22, 

2014 decision denying compensation for an alleged emotional condition. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for 

reconsideration within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 

C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

 28 Beverly R. Jones, 55 ECAB 411 (2004). 

29 See Joel Parker, Sr., 43 ECAB 220 (1991) (the Board held that a claimant must substantiate allegations of 

harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable evidence). 

30 Curtis Hall, 45 ECAB 316 (1994); Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992). 

31 See Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991). 

32 A.K., 58 ECAB 119 (2006). 
11

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant failed to meet her burden of proof to establish an 

emotional condition causally related to factors of her federal employment. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 22, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 1, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board