United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, 

Warner Robins, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1492

Issued: July 5, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On June 26, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from the May 22, 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 his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 27, 2017 appellant, then a 67-year-old equipment specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging mental stress, high blood pressure, depression,

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and loss of hope due to an issue concerning his parking space at work. He asserted that his illness 

began in 2009 and continued until he was overwhelmed on March 8, 2017. Appellant indicated 

that he had filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint and “won” a parking space. 

However, others parked in his space and he was unable to use it. Appellant stated that the stress 

of the parking situation was overwhelming and that on March 8, 2017 he went to the dispensary 

and was diagnosed with stress. He stopped work on March 10, 2017 and returned to work on 

March 16, 2017. Appellant submitted a copy of an April 30, 2007 disabled person’s license plate 

affidavit and his position description. 

In a September 23, 2002 note, Dr. Lemmy Effa, an internist, noted that appellant had

chronic low back and neck pain. Appellant was instructed to avoid prolonged standing. 

In a November 25, 2008 note, a physician, with an illegible signature, indicated that 

appellant needed permanent handicap parking. 

By development letter dated April 7, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish his emotional condition claim. It requested that he respond 

to an attached questionnaire in order to substantiate the factual elements of his claim and submit 

medical evidence from a physician to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to his 

employment. Appellant was afforded 30 days to submit this evidence. A similar letter was sent 

to the employing establishment.

In a March 21, 2017 statement, appellant related that individuals in his management chain 

and others conspired to revoke his reserved handicap parking space, which he had for eight years. 

He stated that he was awarded the handicap parking space closest to his work area, outside of door 

6D, which was the second parking space on the right of the steps leading down to the street. 

Appellant stated that there was a constant flow of people who parked in his space more often than 

he was able to. While security officers ticketed people for parking in his space, he alleged that he 

was also ticketed because he had to park behind a dumpster if his space was not available. 

Appellant indicated that the situation became stressful over the years. He reached his breaking 

point and felt that he was unjustly targeted and attacked when management decided to take the 

parking space away. Appellant alleged that someone with no medical knowledge of his condition 

or endurance made a judgment call and revoked his permanent handicap parking space. He alleged 

stress from his reserved handicapped space being unjustly taken away after eight years, the tickets 

he received over the years, the lack of handicapped accessible places, and the stress of going to 

the base dispensary and his private physician. 

Appellant submitted a copy of his handicap parking permit, which was valid until 

March 10, 2021, and e-mail correspondence, which pertained to his EEO claim and 

parking/speeding tickets. A copy of a prescription and e-mail correspondence pertaining to sick 

leave were received along with return to work notes dated January 7, 2009, November 28 and

December 5, 2016, and March 8 and 15, 2017 from various physicians.

A March 8, 2017 incident report form indicated that appellant was diagnosed with stress 

and was able to return to duty. The reported incident was a reserved parking space being taken 

away.
3

An April 17, 2017 report from Michele Scarborough, FNP-C, a certified nurse practitioner, 

reported that appellant stated that he had not been to work due to work-related stress. Appellant 

indicated that he was parking in a reserved spot and then someone began taking that spot. He then 

parked in an area he was not supposed to park and received a ticket. Appellant went through 

different channels to resolve the issue with limited resolution. When he came to work and the 

reserved spots were gone, he became angry, anxious, began crying, and had physical symptoms 

including uncontrolled chest pain. An assessment of anxiety and depression was provided. 

OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim by decision dated May 22, 2017. It 

determined that he had failed to provide a factual basis for his claim because he had not responded 

to OWCP’s factual development questionnaire. OWCP also found that appellant had failed to 

submit sufficient medical evidence to establish a diagnosed condition causally related to the 

alleged work-related incidents. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To establish his claim that he sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty, 

appellant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing that he has an emotional 

or stress-related disorder; (2) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged 

to have caused or contributed to his condition; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence 

establishing that the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to his stressrelated condition.2

 

If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, OWCP should then determine whether 

the evidence of record substantiates that factor.3 When the matter asserted is a compensable factor 

of employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter asserted, OWCP must 

base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.4

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,

5

the Board explained 

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

emotional condition arising under FECA. 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 emotional reaction to a 

special assignment or other requirement imposed by the employing establishment or by the nature 

 

2 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

3 Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

4

Id.

5 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

6 See Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999).
4

of the work.7 Allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an 

emotional condition claim.8 Where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he 

or she must substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence.9 Personal 

perceptions alone are insufficient to establish an employment-related emotional condition.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.

Appellant has not attributed his emotional condition to the performance of his regular work 

duties or to any special work requirement arising from his employment duties under Cutler.11 

Rather, his claim pertains to his reserved/handicapped parking space, which he alleged that other 

drivers parked in. Appellant alleged that he received tickets for parking illegally when others were 

in his reserved/handicapped parking space. He also alleged that management decided to revoke 

his reserved/handicap parking space. 

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

employment, are administrative functions of the employing establishment rather than the regular 

or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA.12 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.13 A claimant must support his allegations with probative and 

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

emotional condition.14

In a factually similar case wherein a claimant alleged a general pattern of harassment and 

discrimination in denying her right to assigned handicap parking, the Board held that a claimant 

must establish a factual basis for her allegations with probative and reliable evidence.15 In the 

present case, the evidence submitted is insufficient to establish that the employment incidents 

occurred as alleged. Appellant submitted no evidence to establish that his reserved/handicapped 

 

7 Lillian Cutler, supra note 5.

8

J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008).

9 M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007).

10 Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001).

11 See James E. Norris, 52 ECAB 93 (2000).

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

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

566 (1991).

14 Supra note 10.

15 E.H., Docket No. 11-0798 (issued March 22, 2012). 
5

parking space was being used by others to the extent and duration alleged, to harass or discriminate 

against him, or that these acts were condoned by the employing establishment.

16

 He also did not

submit evidence to support that his reserved/handicap parking space was revoked in error by the 

employing establishment.

17

 OWCP, by letter dated April 7, 2017, informed appellant of the 

evidence needed to support his claim. It asked that he respond to a questionnaire describing how 

the claimed incident occurred and how his emotional condition developed. Appellant did not 

respond with the information requested in the April 7, 2017 development letter. He also did not 

submit evidence to support his allegations pertaining to his reserved/handicap parking space. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that appellant has not established that the 

claimed incidents occurred as alleged.18 Therefore, appellant has not met his burden of proof to 

establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty. As he has failed to meet his burden 

of proof to establish a compensable employment factor, the Board need not consider the medical 

evidence of record.19

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 has not met his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.

 

16 See id.

17 Supra note 13. 

18 See L.G., Docket No. 17-0160 (issued May 1, 2017).

19 See Katherine A. Berg, 54 ECAB 262 (2002).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 22, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: July 5, 2018

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board