United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.F., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

GREAT LAKES PROGRAM SERVICE 

CENTER, Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-0970

Issued: February 26, 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 April 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 7, 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 the claim. 

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 22, 2014 appellant, then a 55-year-old social insurance specialist and claims 

authorizer, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that on or before March 1, 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

2011, managers had denied her training, had falsely accused her of disrespect, had issued unfair 

performance evaluations from 2011 through 2014, had failed to provide a job transfer as a 

reasonable accommodation for a psychiatric disability, and had retained her in trainee status for 

five years and two months to deny her privileges accorded to other employees, causing severe 

depression and anxiety. She continued working at the employing establishment and remained 

exposed to the identified work factors until she stopped work on July 8, 2014. 

In an October 24, 2012 letter, appellant’s supervisor, D.G., informed appellant that he 

would discuss her request to transfer to a different facility when she returned from leave. 

Appellant again requested a transfer on November 12, 2012 as a reasonable accommodation for

stress due to alleged disparate treatment, unfair performance appraisals, and denial of training in 

retaliation for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint. In a September 10, 

2013 letter, the employing establishment found that she had established that she was a person 

with a disability “due to ongoing treatment for psychological disorders.” On February 3, 2014

the employing establishment denied appellant’s request for a transfer as a reasonable 

accommodation for her psychological disorders. 

In an undated letter, the employing establishment generally refuted appellant’s

allegations of harassment, discrimination, disparate treatment, and denial of training. It noted 

that, under a union contract, it was contractually obligated to rate her as successful in 2012 and 

2013 although she was “performing below this level in Demonstrates Job Knowledge and 

Achieves Business Results.”

Appellant also submitted medical evidence. Dr. Syed R. Akhter, an attending Boardcertified family practitioner, provided reports dated from August 21, 2012 to March 22, 2013 

holding her off work due to major depression and anxiety.

2

 

By development letter dated September 26, 2014, OWCP notified appellant of the

additional evidence needed to establish her emotional condition claim, including factual evidence 

in corroboration of her allegations against the employing establishment. It afforded her 30 days 

to submit such evidence. 

In response, appellant submitted July 25, 2014 statements, received by OWCP on 

October 30, 2014. She alleged a pattern of supervisory harassment, discrimination, and disparate 

treatment from 2011 through 2014, based on her gender, race, and disability. Appellant 

contended that her mentor denied her requests for a new mentor on February 15 and 28, and 

March 1, 2011 on the basis of race. She further argued that managers made negative comments 

about her interpersonal skills in March and April 2011 performance ratings without any 

substantiation, and assessed case processing errors against her without adequate explanation. 

Appellant also alleged that the employing establishment denied her requests for “refresher 

training” in March, April, and May 2011, and forbade her to ask work-related questions to 

anyone other than her mentor, while other employees could seek assistance freely. Additionally, 

she argued that management issued her poor performance ratings in retaliation for her EEO 

 

2 Appellant also submitted reports from a nurse practitioner. 
3

complaints,3instructed her to complete her timesheets differently than other employees, and 

denied her full credit for completed work from February 2011 onward. Appellant also contended 

that her training program commencing in 2011 was of insufficient quality and consistency to 

meet various regulations and union criteria. 

Appellant also provided medical evidence. On October 17, 2014 Dr. Theodore Handrup, 

an attending Board-certified psychiatrist, opined that she had severe depression and anxiety due 

to work stress. On October 23, 2014 Dr. Akhter noted that appellant’s “psychiatric issues began 

since about March 2011 due to possible stressful environment.” 

By decision dated March 18, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that she 

failed to establish any compensable factors of employment. It found that she did not submit 

factual evidence corroborating any harassment, retaliation, discrimination, or disparate treatment. 

Additionally, OWCP found that appellant’s allegations regarding performance appraisals, access 

to mentoring and training, and desire for a transfer pertained to administrative matters not within 

the performance of her assigned duties, and that no error or abuse was shown that would bring 

these incidents under the scope of FECA. 

On March 9, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration. In support of her request, she 

submitted her February 25 and March 7, 2016 letters which she asserted would demonstrate 

compensable factors of employment. Appellant also provided her e-mails, dated from August 9, 

2010 to April 27, 2012, in which she expressed dissatisfaction with the managerial style of her 

mentors and supervisors, alleged that she had been provided fewer mentoring and training 

opportunities than her coworkers, and requested to move her workstation to a quieter area. In a 

September 17, 2013 letter, she requested a change in “work environment” as a reasonable 

accommodation.

Additionally, appellant provided March, April, and December 2011 e-mails to and from 

her managers discussing case tracking and timekeeping matters. A May 13, 2011 e-mail from an 

assistant manager noted that her production report would be amended to include three cases that

were inadvertently omitted due to a tracking system irregularity. 

Appellant also submitted April 2011 EEO grievance documents reiterating her 

allegations, and August 2011 witness affidavits from her EEO complaints. Managers A.C., T.G., 

B.J., B.M., and D.T. refuted her allegations of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, disparate 

treatment, and denial of training. Each explained that appellant had been given specific feedback 

on her performance with suggestions for improvement, and had access to mentoring and training 

needed to perform her job. Appellant asked many more questions than her coworkers, and 

received additional assistance. Coworker D.G. did not corroborate her account of events. 

Appellant provided an undated statement in which she contended that the manager witness 

statements were generally inaccurate and untruthful. 

Appellant also provided March 3, 2011 and July 27, 2012 notes from Dr. Akhter, holding 

her off work from March 2 to 7, 2011 and diagnosing depression and anxiety. 

 

3 Appellant provided EEO documents from May 2011 to December 2012, reiterating her allegations of 

managerial harassment, discrimination, and disparate treatment. There is no final decision or settlement of record.
4

In a March 1, 2016 letter, the Office of Personnel Management found appellant disabled 

from her position as a social insurance specialist “due to anxiety.”

By decision dated February 7, 2017, OWCP affirmed the prior decision as modified. It

found that appellant had not established an injury in the performance of duty as the additional 

evidence submitted on reconsideration failed to establish any compensable factor of 

employment. Specifically, appellant’s allegations of harassment, discrimination, disparate 

treatment, retaliation, and inadequate training had not been established as factual. OWCP further 

found that her allegations regarding work assignments, managerial methods, or her desire for a 

different position related to administrative matters not within the performance of her regular or 

specially assigned duties. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment. There are situations where an injury or an 

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

concept or coverage of workers’ compensation. Where the disability results from an employee’s 

emotional reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed 

by the employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.4 On the other hand, the 

disability is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reductionin-force or his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or 

to hold a particular position.5

Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative,

and substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused 

or adversely affected by employment factors.6 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions which appellant believes caused or adversely 

affected the condition or conditions for which compensation is claimed.7

In cases involving emotional conditions, the Board has held that, when working 

conditions are alleged as factors in causing a condition or disability, OWCP as part of its 

adjudicatory function, must make findings of fact regarding which working conditions are 

deemed compensable factors of employment and are to be considered by a physician, when 

providing an opinion on causal relationship and which working conditions are not deemed 

factors of employment and may not be considered.8 If a claimant does implicate a factor of 

employment, OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that 

 

4 Supra note 1.

5 See Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 566 (1991); Lillian Cutler, 

28 ECAB 125 (1976).

6 Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838, 841 (1987).

7 Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993).

8 See Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384 (1993). 
5

factor. When the matter asserted is a compensable factor of employment and the evidence of 

record establishes the truth of the matter asserted, it must base its decision on an analysis of the 

medical evidence.9

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

there must be probative and reliable evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact 

occur.10 Mere perceptions of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination are not compensable 

under FECA.11 

ANALYSIS

Appellant has not attributed her claimed emotional condition to regular or specially 

assigned duties as a claims authorizer under Cutler.

12

 Rather, her case is based primarily on her 

allegations of harassment, discrimination, and disparate treatment by her supervisors. In a 

September 26, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed to establish 

her claim. Appellant provided additional statements reiterating her allegations, performance 

reviews, supervisory e-mails regarding case tracking and timekeeping, managerial and coworker 

affidavits, EEO complaint documents, and medical evidence. OWCP denied the claim by 

decision dated March 18, 2015 and affirmed on February 7, 2017, finding that appellant failed to 

establish any compensable factors of employment. 

Appellant made several allegations related to administrative and personnel actions. In 

Thomas D. McEuen,

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

actions or personnel matters taken by the employing establishment 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 notes that these matters 

are administrative or personnel matters, unrelated to the employee’s regular or specially assigned 

work duties and do not fall within the coverage of FECA.14 Although these matters are generally 

related to the employment, they are administrative functions of the employing establishment, and 

not duties of the employee.15 The Board notes, however, that coverage under FECA would 

attach if the factual circumstances surrounding the administrative or personnel action established 

error or abuse by the employing establishment superiors in dealing with the claimant. Absent 

evidence of such error or abuse, the resulting emotional condition must be considered self-

 

9 Lori A. Facey, 55 ECAB217 (2004); Norma L. Blank, id.

10 Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003).

11 Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001).

12 See Cutler, supra note 5.

13 See Thomas D. McEuen, supra note 5. 

14 See Janet I. Jones, 47 ECAB 345, 347 (1996), Jimmy Gilbreath, 44 ECAB 555, 558 (1993); Apple Gate, 41 

ECAB 581, 588 (1990); Joseph C. DeDonato, 39 ECAB 1260, 1266-67 (1988). See also Beverly R. Jones, 55 

ECAB 411 (2004) (monitoring work is an administrative function of a supervisor).

15 Id.
6

generated. In determining whether the employing establishment erred or acted abusively, the 

Board has examined whether the employing establishment acted reasonably.16

Regarding appellant’s request for a transfer, to be promoted from trainee status, and to 

move her workstation, the Board has held that denials by an employing establishment of a 

request for a different job, promotion, or transfer are not compensable factors of employment as

they do not involve the employee’s ability to perform her regular or specially assigned work 

duties, but rather constitute her desire to work in a different position or environment.17 

Appellant has not provided evidence that the employing establishment acted unreasonably in 

these matters. Therefore, she has not established a compensable factor of employment in this 

regard. 

Appellant also alleged that the employing establishment did not provide her adequate 

training and mentoring to perform her assigned duties. She did not submit any evidence to show 

that the employing establishment committed error or abuse with respect to training, support, or 

work assignment matters. Additionally, the supervisors’ affidavits, August 25, 2010 e-mail 

offering tutoring, and August 25, 2010 performance review noting that appellant did not request 

additional assistance, demonstrated that help had been available to appellant, but that she chose 

not to utilize it. 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.18 As such, appellant has not 

established a compensable employment factor with respect to these administrative matters. 

Insofar as appellant alleged that the employing establishment initially failed to credit her 

with three cases completed in March 2011 and subsequently amended her production report, the 

Board finds that the employing establishment’s May 13, 2011 e-mail demonstrates that this 

incident occurred as alleged. However, this is not a compensable employment factor as it does 

not involve her assigned duties, but rather the administrative function of tracking an employee’s 

work.19 Also, there is no error or abuse shown that rises to a compensable level. The employing 

establishment explained that an inconsistency in a tracking system caused the initial omission. 

This clerical error was quickly remedied when appellant brought it to her supervisor’s attention. 

Under these circumstances, the Board finds that the employing establishment acted reasonably.20 

Therefore, appellant has not established a compensable factor with regard to this administrative 

matter.

Furthermore, appellant did not substantiate any of her allegations of harassment, 

discrimination, retaliation, or disparate treatment. She did not provide witness statements or 

other corroborating evidence. Rather, the August 2011 supervisory affidavits refuted appellant’s

 

16 See Richard J. Dube, 42 ECAB 916, 920 (1991).

17 Donna J. DiBernardo, 47 ECAB 700, 703 (1996).

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

19 Beverly R. Jones, supra note 14.

20 Supra note 16.
7

allegations of harassment and additional mistreatment. They explained that she had been 

provided appropriate feedback and instructions to improve her performance. As appellant’s 

allegations were not established as factual, they do not constitute compensable employment 

factors.21

The Board finds that appellant has not established a compensable factor of employment. 

As such, the medical evidence of record does not need to be addressed.22

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP erred by finding that she did not establish any 

compensable work factors. She also argues that the medical evidence of record is sufficient to 

establish causal relationship. As noted above, appellant failed to establish any work factors 

within the performance of her regular or specially assigned duties. Because fact of injury is not 

established, the medical evidence of record is irrelevant to the claim.

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 

emotional condition in the performance of duty.

 

21 See supra notes 10-11.

22 Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs dated February 7, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: February 26, 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