United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.T., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Humacao, PR, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1424 

Issued: March 7, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Paul Kalker, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On June 27, 2016 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a May 26, 2016 

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (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 this case. 

ISSUE 

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

condition in the performance of duty. 

 1

 In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An 

attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject 

to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation. 

2

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On September 25, 2014 appellant, then a 45-year-old city letter carrier, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained stress-related conditions in 

the form of arterial hypertension and adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. He 

indicated that he first became aware of his claimed condition on November 8, 2013 and first 

realized on September 10, 2014 that it was caused or aggravated by his employment. Appellant 

stopped work on September 10, 2014. 

In a letter dated October 29, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of his emotional condition claim. 

Appellant submitted an undated statement, received by OWCP on November 28, 2014, in 

which he discussed various incidents and conditions at work which he felt caused his stressrelated emotional conditions. He asserted that the postmaster for his workplace improperly gave 

him a predetermination interview (PDI) letter and letter of warning for performance on 

September 19, 2009 regarding his rest breaks that day. Appellant felt that this constituted 

harassment and he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint. He asserted that 

the outcome of the EEO mediation was that his delivery route would be modified with more 

centralized deliveries. Appellant alleged that the postmaster created a hostile work environment 

and that, on October 7, 2010, he had an argument about his work with the postmaster which 

appellant claimed was unprofessional. He asserted that the postmaster had incorrectly given him 

a letter of warning for improper conduct. Appellant claimed that he filed a grievance and it was 

determined that the letter of warning would be rescinded due to it being punitive and not 

corrective. 

In his undated statement, appellant alleged that another postmaster at work (hereinafter 

referred to as second postmaster) harassed him by questioning his work based on a measuring 

tool called Delivery Operation Information System, which is a management tool for estimating a 

carrier’s daily workload. He asserted that projections based on the system were improperly used 

as the sole basis for determining the leaving and/or returning time on a daily basis. Appellant 

claimed that in February 2013 the second postmaster ordered him not to separate the mail 

anymore for a particular address. He felt that this created a “hostile environment” since 

customers started to harass him by questioning why their mail was being delivered to private 

mailboxes instead of their own businesses. Appellant asserted that on November 17, 2010 he 

was given another improper PDI letter due to a November 13, 2010 incident when another 

coworker “cuss me out on the work floor.” He noted that on October 15, 2011 he filed 

grievances for disparate treatment since management otherwise allowed violence on the work 

floor. Appellant asserted that on October 30, 2013 the second postmaster accused appellant of 

assaulting a coworker and threatened to send him home if he did not comply. The second 

postmaster gave him a PDI letter without considering appellant’s statement and refused to let 

him have union representation. 

In his undated statement, appellant asserted that in January 2014, the postmaster allowed 

other carriers to disturb the peace by making noise and jokes in which she participated. He 

claimed that, on the other hand, his supervisor would tell him to keep to himself and avoid any 

contact with coworkers. Appellant indicated that the postmaster made him work in a manner that 
3

did not take into consideration his health condition. He claimed that she gave him the largest 

part of a particular job and gave a coworker the smallest part. Appellant asserted that on one 

occasion the postmaster wrongly accused him of delaying the mail. He indicated that he 

requested a special inspection of his mail route to stop being harassed by the postmaster 

complaining that his delivery route was “under time.” Appellant asserted that the postmaster 

violated his rights by changing his route before the inspection occurred. He asserted that the 

postmaster shouted and yelled at him including on September 10, 2014. Appellant claimed that 

the postmaster embarrassed him in front of his coworkers, including an occasion on October 22, 

2014 when the postmaster publicly posted an incorrect statement that he was the only one who 

missed scans for his route. Appellant asserted that the postmaster puts appellant’s “integrity in 

jeopardy.” Appellant claimed that on October 29, 2014 the postmaster improperly told a 

customer that her packages were not delivered because of him. 

Appellant submitted numerous documents in support of his claim, including disciplinary 

letters he received, documents from EEO complaints, and witness statements of coworkers and 

customers. In a May 29, 2014 statement, a customer complained about his mail being delivered 

to private mail boxes. In a November 5, 2014 statement, a customer indicated that the 

postmaster told her that a package did not get to her house because appellant placed an 

incomplete address on it. The record contains EEO documents from February 2010 regarding 

the EEO mediation referenced by appellant with respect to his rest breaks. However, the 

documents reflect that the employing establishment did not admit to any wrongdoing in this 

mediation resolution. 

Appellant submitted medical evidence in support of his claim, including reports of 

Dr. Fernando Cabrera, Jr., an attending Board-certified psychiatrist. 

In a February 25, 2015 statement, the second postmaster denied the allegations made by 

appellant in his statement received by OWCP on November 28, 2014. She denied that appellant 

was subjected to harassment or discrimination or that there was any error or abuse with respect to 

administrative matters. The second postmaster indicated that, with respect to the October 30, 

2013 incident, appellant was the physical aggressor in the conflict with a coworker.3

In a decision dated March 27, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

because he had failed to establish any compensable employment factors. It found that appellant 

had not established the factual basis for his claims of harassment and discrimination and had not 

established error or abuse with respect to administrative matters. 

In a letter dated December 21, 2015, appellant, through counsel, requested 

reconsideration of OWCP’s March 27, 2015 decision. Counsel argued that OWCP had actually 

found several accepted work factors in its March 27, 2015 decision, including those related to 

harassment on September 19, 2009 and October 7, 2010 and the questioning of his work based 

on results of the use of the Delivery Operation Information System by his supervisor. 

 3

 The second postmaster submitted a November 14, 2010 statement in which another coworker indicated that 

appellant aggressively insulted him at work on November 13, 2010. 
4

Appellant submitted additional medical reports in support of his claim, including a 

May 17, 2015 report of an attending clinical psychologist and a May 20, 2015 report of an 

attending Board-certified psychiatrist. 

By decision dated May 26, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its March 27, 2015 

decision denying appellant’s emotional condition. It continued to find that appellant had failed 

to establish any compensable employment factor, whether in the form of harassment, 

discrimination, or error or abuse in administrative matters. 

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

 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.6 However, the Board 

has held that, where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing 

establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.7 

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

examine the factual evidence of record to determine whether the employing establishment acted 

reasonably.8 

 To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment and 

discrimination by supervisors and coworkers are established as occurring and arising from 

appellant’s performance of his or her regular duties, these could constitute employment factors.9

 

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

 4 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

5 Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001). 

6 Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 

ECAB 556 (1991). 

7 William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998). 

8 Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994). 

9 David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991). 
5

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

harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.10

 Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

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

adversely affected by employment factors.11 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.12

 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.13 If a claimant does implicate a factor of 

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

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

record establishes the truth of the matter claimed, OWCP must base its decision on an analysis of 

the medical evidence.14

 Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence. Rationalized medical 

opinion evidence is medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on 

whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the 

compensable employment factors. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

and accurate factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical 

certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors identified by the 

claimant.15

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he sustained an emotional condition as a result of a number of 

alleged employment incidents and conditions. OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim because he did not establish any compensable employment factors. The Board must 

initially review whether these alleged incidents and conditions of employment are covered 

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

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

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

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

14 Id.

15 Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730, 741-42 (1990). 
6

employment factors under the terms of FECA. The Board notes that appellant’s allegations do 

not pertain to his regular or specially assigned duties under Cutler.

16 Rather, appellant has 

alleged error and abuse in administrative matters and harassment and discrimination on the part 

of his supervisors. 

Appellant alleged that his employer committed wrongdoing by improperly issuing 

unwarranted disciplinary letters, mishandling a special inspection of his mail route, improperly 

assigning work tasks, mishandling matters relating to limitations caused by his health, 

improperly changing methods of mail delivery to customers, and incorrectly using a management 

tool called the Delivery Operation Information System. Such 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. However, the Board has held that, where the evidence establishes 

error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment in what would otherwise be an 

administrative matter, coverage will be afforded. 

The Board finds that appellant had not submitted sufficient evidence to establish error or 

abuse with respect to these administrative matters. Appellant filed grievances and EEO 

complaints with respect to some of these matters, but the results of these actions do not show 

management wrongdoing. For example, the record contains mediation papers from the EEO 

complaint regarding rest breaks, but the documents indicate that any changes made to mail 

delivery practices were without prejudice to either party.17 Thus, appellant has not established a 

compensable employment factor under FECA with respect to his claims that management 

committed error or abuse with respect to administrative matters. 

 Appellant claimed that two of his supervisors subjected him to harassment and 

discrimination by yelling at him, embarrassing him in front of his coworkers, subjecting him to 

discriminatory discipline actions, isolating him from coworkers, and failing to discipline workers 

who were aggressive towards him. The employing establishment denied that appellant was 

subjected to harassment or discrimination and appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to 

establish that he was harassed or discriminated against by his supervisors.18 Appellant alleged 

that supervisors made statements and engaged in actions which he believed constituted 

harassment and discrimination, but he provided no corroborating evidence, such as witness 

statements, to establish that the statements actually were made or that the actions actually 

 16 See supra note 4. 

17 Appellant asserted that management changed the delivery method to a certain address and that customers began 

to question why their mail was being delivered to private mailboxes instead of their own businesses. The record 

contains a statement of a customer who complained about this practice, but this evidence would not show that 

management’s actions constituted error or abuse. 

18 See Joel Parker, Sr., 43 ECAB 220, 225 (1991) (finding that a claimant must substantiate allegations of 

harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable evidence). The Board notes that one of appellant’s 

supervisors indicated that appellant was the physical aggressor in a conflict with a coworker and therefore her 

discipline of him was not discriminatory. 
7

occurred.19 While he submitted statements from postal customers, these fail to prove any error 

or abuse with respect to administrative matters. Thus, appellant has not established a 

compensable employment factor under FECA with respect to the claimed harassment and 

discrimination. 

On appeal counsel argues that OWCP actually found several accepted work factors in its 

March 27, 2015 decision including those related to harassment on September 19, 2009 and 

October 7, 2010 and the questioning of his work based on results of the use of the Delivery 

Operation Information System by a supervisor. However, a review of OWCP’s March 27, 2015 

decision reveals that the incidents and condition referred to by counsel were actually deemed to 

relate to administrative matters which, in the absence of error or abuse, would not constitute 

employment factors. 

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

factors under FECA and, therefore, has not met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained 

an emotional condition in the performance of duty.20

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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. 

 19 See William P. George, 43 ECAB 1159, 1167 (1992). In a November 5, 2014 statement, a customer indicated 

that the postmaster told her that a package did not get to her house because appellant placed an incomplete address 

on it. However, this statement does not show that the postmaster engaged in harassment, let alone harassment that 

directly affected appellant. 

20 As appellant has not established any compensable employment factors, the Board need not consider the medical 

evidence of record; see Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-03 (1992). 
8

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 26, 2016 merit decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 7, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board