United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.S., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL OFFICE, POST OFFICE, 

Brady, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0769 

Issued: July 11, 2016 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 29, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 3, 2015 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs1

 (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2

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

jurisdiction over the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

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

condition in the performance of duty. 

 1

 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from September 3, 2015, the date of OWCP’s last decision was 

March 1, 2016. Since using March 7, 2016, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the 

U.S. Postal Service postmark is February 29, 2016, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 15, 2015 appellant, then a 56-year-old clerk, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form 

CA-1) alleging that on July 13, 2015 she experienced mental stress from working in a hostile 

environment. She stopped work on July 14, 2015. Appellant’s supervisor noted on the Form 

CA-1 that appellant was not injured in the performance of duty, rather, she filed the emotional 

condition claim after an argument with management over an administrative matter. She noted 

the employing establishment challenged whether the injury occurred in the performance of duty. 

The supervisor further noted that no medical evidence was submitted. 

On July 31, 2015 OWCP requested that appellant submit additional evidence to include a 

detailed description of the work incidents that contributed to her claimed illness. It noted that no 

diagnosis of any condition resulting from an employment activity was provided and requested 

that appellant submit a physician’s opinion as to how employment activities caused, contributed 

to, or aggravated her medical condition. OWCP asked appellant to substantiate the factual 

elements of her claim and respond to an attached questionnaire. It also requested that the 

employing establishment comment on appellant’s statements and provide information about her 

work duties and possible sources of stress. 

OWCP received an August 3, 2015 continuation of pay nurse report which noted that 

appellant’s continuation of pay case was closed and appellant had not returned to work. The 

nurse indicated that appellant stopped work on July 14, 2015 after reporting a stress claim, but 

advised that no medical evidence had been received to support lost time. The nurse had been 

unable to reach appellant by telephone. 

In a decision dated September 3, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an emotional 

condition as the evidence of record did not support that the events occurred as alleged. It advised 

that, while appellant alleged a hostile work environment that caused mental stress, she had 

provided no documentation to support her claim. 

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.3

 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.4

 

 3 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

4 Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001). 
3

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.5 

A claimant has the burden of establishing 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 a condition for which compensation is claimed and a rationalized medical opinion 

relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.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 

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

ANALYSIS 

On July 15, 2015 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim alleging that she experienced 

mental stress on July 13, 2015 from working in a hostile environment. On July 31, 2015 OWCP 

asked appellant to substantiate the factual elements of her claim and respond to a development 

questionnaire. Appellant made no response to this request. OWCP denied her emotional 

condition claim finding that she had not submitted any supportive evidence to establish a factual 

basis for her claim. 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet her burden of proof to adequately describe 

the work factors which she believed caused her to sustain an emotional condition. As noted 

above, appellant’s burden includes the submission of a detailed description of the employment 

factors or conditions which she believed caused or adversely affected a condition for which 

compensation is claimed and a rationalized medical opinion relating the claimed condition to 

 5 Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991). 

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

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

8 See Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992). 

9 Id.
4

compensable employment factors.10 She generally alleged stress from a hostile environment, but 

did not provide any further detail about the specific incident, such as when it occurred, where it 

occurred, how it occurred, the individuals involved, and the statements or actions that took place 

during the incident. Appellant did not provide any factual evidence in support of her generalized 

assertion. She was provided an opportunity to provide additional detail regarding her claimed 

work factors, but she failed to do so. Appellant’s supervisor stated that appellant filed the claim 

after an argument over an administrative matter which is a function of the employing 

establishment and generally not covered under FECA.11

For the foregoing reasons, appellant has not established any compensable employment 

factors under FECA and, therefore, has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.12 

On appeal appellant indicated that she wished to have an opportunity to delineate the 

work factors which she believed caused her emotional condition. She 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 establish an emotional condition in the 

performance of duty. 

 10 Supra note 7. 

11 See Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004) (administrative and personnel matters, although generally 

related to the employee’s employment, are functions of the employing establishment rather than the regular or 

specially assigned work duties of the employee and are generally not covered under FECA). 

12 As appellant has not established any compensable employment factors, the Board need not consider whether 

medical evidence establishes that an employment factor contributed to an emotional condition. See Margaret S. 

Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-03 (1992). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 3, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 11, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board