United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Cleveland, OH, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1525

Issued: January 10, 2018

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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On July 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 2, 2017 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 over 

the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish an employmentrelated injury. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 28, 2015 appellant, then a 35-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that involvement in an investigation pertaining to drug packages on 

her route on August 20, 2015 caused mental and physical stress. She stopped work that day.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

In a medical excuse note dated August 27, 2015, Dr. Umair Malik, a Board-certified 

family physician, noted evaluating appellant that day. He indicated that she was under his care 

and was incapacitated due to mental stress from August 20 to September 20, 2015. Dr. Malik 

advised that appellant could return to work on September 21, 2015.

By development letter dated September 17, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the 

evidence needed to establish her claim. This was to include a physician’s opinion, supported by 

a medical explanation, as to how the work incident caused or aggravated a medical condition. 

Appellant was asked to describe any similar disability or symptoms that occurred prior to the 

injury and to provide records of prior treatment. She was also asked to describe the claimed 

incident in detail and was afforded 30 days to respond. In a separate letter, OWCP also 

requested the employing establishment to furnish information about the claimed incident.

In reports dated September 29, 2015, Nicholette Leanza, M.Ed., a licensed professional 

clinical counselor with supervision designation, noted seeing appellant for a diagnostic 

psychological assessment. She noted a history that suspicious activity on appellant’s mail route 

caused anxiety and stress. Ms. Leanza diagnosed acute stress disorder and advised that it was 

caused by the employment incident. She recommended continued therapy and advised that 

appellant could return to work on approximately October 5, 2015. 

In an October 5, 2015 statement, appellant indicated that on August 13, 2015 she did not 

deliver a suspicious package and returned it to the station. She related that she was followed as 

she returned to the station. Appellant continued that on August 17, 2015 two postal inspectors 

interviewed her about the package and had her identify two men, the one receiving the package 

and the one who followed her. She related that the postal inspectors assured her that she would 

not be identified in any investigation, but that on August 20, 2015 she was interviewed by two 

different postal inspectors who informed her that the two men had been arrested and were out on 

bail. The postal inspectors informed her that her name would be on federal indictments and 

asked if she would be more comfortable delivering another route. Appellant indicated that she 

then became fearful for her safety, became upset, and left work. She advised that she returned to 

another station on October 5, 2015. A union steward was present during the August 17, 2015 

interview and for part of the August 20, 2015 interview.

By decision dated October 26, 2015, OWCP found that the event or events occurred as 

alleged, but denied the claim because appellant had failed to submit sufficient medical evidence 

to establish that a medical condition was caused by the established work factors.

Appellant timely requested a hearing with OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. She 

submitted an undated narrative statement in which D.C., customer service supervisor, advised 

that on August 13, 2015 appellant called her and stated that she was being followed by a man in 

a black car who approached her while she was delivering and asked about a package. D.C. 

indicated that appellant told her that she felt unsafe, that she took pictures of the car following 

her, and that she brought the package the man was looking for back to the station. After 

approximately 15 minutes, appellant returned to her route.

At the hearing, held on July 20, 2016, appellant testified regarding events that began in 

early August 2015 regarding suspicious packages for her route. She indicated that this 
3

culminated with the interview with postal inspectors on August 20, 2015. Appellant continued

that the claim was for a series of events, noting that she was approached several times in 

August 2015 by one of the men she identified to the postal inspectors. She stated that these 

events caused stress and anxiety, and her doctor kept her off work until she returned to a 

different station on October 5, 2015.

Appellant submitted an after visit summary of the August 27, 2015 appointment with

Dr. Malik. Dr. Malik diagnosed stress at work and advised that she should consult with 

psychiatry and return in approximately one week.

In a medical excuse note dated September 15, 2015, Dr. Shakuntala Kothari, a Boardcertified internist, noted evaluating appellant that day. She indicated that appellant was under 

her care and could return to work on October 5, 2015. A partial report from Dr. Kothari’s 

September 15, 2015 examination advised that she should consult with psychology for anxiety 

and abnormal weight gain.

By decision dated September 17, 2016, an OWCP hearing representative found the 

medical evidence of record insufficient to establish causal relationship between the accepted 

employment incidents and any diagnosed condition. She affirmed the October 26, 2015 

decision.2

On October 31, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. She noted that, after the 

September 17, 2016 decision, she had forwarded a report from her physician.

In correspondence dated September 29, 2016, Dr. Kothari noted that she was providing 

details of the medical illness that ensued due to a work-related incident in 2015. She indicated 

that appellant was first seen on August 27, 2015 by a colleague for an incident at work which 

resulted in several physical symptoms. Dr. Kothari described appellant’s report that she 

suspected that a client on her mail route was obtaining drugs via the mail system that she was 

delivering them to his home. Appellant reported this to her supervisors and then noticed that 

someone was following her along her mail route which she also reported, indicated that police 

were involved, and that both offenders were arrested. Dr. Kothari continued that appellant 

identified them with the understanding that she would remain anonymous and that her name 

would be withheld at any proceedings, but that both men were released on bail, and appellant 

was then visited by federal inspectors who told her that the men would be rearrested and that her

name would be mentioned in legal documents. She advised that appellant presented to her office 

with fear for herself and her family, and was given time off work by a mental health counselor 

and was referred to a psychiatrist for anxiety, fear, and stress due to the workplace incident.

Dr. Kothari indicated that she saw appellant in follow up on September 15, 2016 with symptoms 

of severe anxiety, fear, and stress. She noted extending appellant’s leave to allow for the change 

in mail carrier duties at work, and that she returned to work on October 6, 2015.

 

2 The hearing representative further found that, upon further review or development to the case, OWCP should 

ensure that a statement of accepted facts include a detailed account of the work events that had been accepted as 

factual.
4

In a merit decision dated February 2, 2017, OWCP found that appellant had established 

that she was involved in an investigation pertaining to drug packages being delivered on her 

route and that, as Dr. Kothari diagnosed medical conditions, this had established that she

sustained a medical condition. It denied the claim, however, because Dr. Kothari did not explain 

how the employment incidents caused the diagnosed conditions.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA and that the claim was timely filed within the 

applicable time limitation period of FECA.4 When an employee claims an injury in the 

performance of duty,5 he or she must submit sufficient evidence to establish a specific event, 

incident, or exposure occurring at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.6 The employee 

must also establish that such event, incident, or exposure caused an injury.7 These are the 

essential elements of each and every compensation claim regardless of whether the claim is 

predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.8

OWCP regulations define a traumatic injury as a condition of the body caused by a 

specific event or incident or series of events or incidents within a single workday or shift.9 The 

regulations define the term “occupational disease or illness” as a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”

10

To establish a stress-related condition in the performance of duty, appellant must submit 

the following: (1) medical evidence establishing that she has a stress-related disorder; (2) factual 

evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to 

her condition; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that the identified 

compensable employment factors are causally related to her stress-related condition.11 The 

medical opinion must be one of reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 5 U.S.C. § 8101(1); L.M., Docket No. 16-0143 (issued February 19, 2016); B.B., 59 ECAB 234 (2007).

5

Id. at § 8102(a).

6

J.C., Docket No. 16-0057 (issued February 10, 2016); E.A., 58 ECAB 677 (2007). 

7

Id.

8 R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(ee); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004).

10 Id. at § 10.5(ee).

11 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).
5

rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the 

specific employment factors identified by the claimant.12

ANALYSIS

OWCP adjudicated this case as a traumatic injury claim. However, it accepted that 

appellant was involved in an investigation pertaining to drug packages being delivered on her 

route. As appellant testified at the July 20, 2016 hearing, the events involving this investigation 

began on approximately August 13, 2015 when she was on her route and was questioned by a 

man regarding a package and was followed by another man. On August 17, 2015, when 

questioned by two postal inspectors, she identified these two men. On August 20, 2015 two 

different postal inspectors questioned her and, at that time, because the men were free on bail, 

she became fearful, left work, and did not return until October 5, 2015 when she began work at a 

different postal facility. Thus, as the circumstances surrounding this investigation occurred over 

several days, and as appellant indicated at the hearing, the Board concludes that it is an 

occupational disease claim.

The Board, however, finds the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that 

appellant sustained a stress-related condition caused by the accepted incidents related to the 

investigation. 

Dr. Malik generally noted that appellant was incapacitated due to mental stress from 

August 20 to September 20, 2015. He did not describe any specific events that caused stress or 

provide a specific diagnosis.13 Medical evidence which does not offer any opinion regarding the 

cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative value on the issue of causal 

relationship.14

The reports of Dr. Kothari are also insufficient to establish causal relationship. 

Dr. Kothari’s September 15, 2015 reports merely indicated that appellant was under her care and 

should see psychology for anxiety and weight loss. In her September 29, 2016 correspondence, 

while Dr. Kothari indicated that appellant had been seen by a colleague for an incident at work 

which resulted in several physical symptoms, she did not describe any physical symptoms or 

offer any physical diagnoses. She related some of the events regarding the postal investigation 

and noted that appellant was referred to a mental health counselor and psychiatrist for stress due 

to the workplace incident and continued to see her for severe anxiety, fear, and stress. 

Dr. Kothari, however, did not offer any medical rationale, explaining the nature of the 

relationship between her diagnoses and their relationship with the specific employment factors

identified from the incidents of the investigation.

15

 

12 Roy L. Humphrey, 57 ECAB 238 (2005).

13 Leslie C. Moore, supra note 11.

14 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

15 See W.W., Docket No. 09-1619 (issued June 2, 2010).
6

The reports from Ms. Leanza do not constitute competent medical evidence. Section 

8101(2) of FECA defines the term “physician” to include surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical 

psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their 

practice as defined by state law.16 There is no evidence establishing that Ms. Leanza, a licensed 

counselor, is a licensed clinical psychologist, which would qualify her as a physician as defined 

under FECA.17

As none of the physicians of record provided a sufficient explanation regarding whether 

appellant’s stress-related condition was caused or aggravated by employment factors, she did not 

meet her burden of proof to establish an employment-related injury. 

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

reconsideration to OWCP 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.

CONCLUSION

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

employment-related injury or condition causally related to factors of her federal employment.

 

16 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2).

17 See N.M., Docket No. 08-2018 (issued September 8, 2009).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 2, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 10, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board