United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PROCESSING & 

DISTRIBUTION CENTER, Little Rock, AR, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1717

Issued: March 27, 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 August 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 24, 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 to 

consider the merits of this case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that OWCP received additional evidence following the July 24, 2017 decision. However, the 

Board may only review evidence that was in the record at the time OWCP issued its final decision. Thus, the Board 

is unable to review this evidence for the first time on appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1); M.B., Docket No. 09-0176 

(issued September 23, 2009); J.T., 59 ECAB 293 (2008); G.G., 58 ECAB 389 (2007); Donald R. Gervasi, 57 ECAB 

281 (2005); Rosemary A. Kayes, 54 ECAB 373 (2003).
2

ISSUE

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

causally related to the accepted compensable factor of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 26, 2013 appellant, then a 47-year-old building maintenance mechanic, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1)3alleging that his placement on administrative leave on 

May 16, 2012, and his termination of employment on August 17, 2012 aggravated his depression 

and anxiety.4

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an arbitration decision dated August 1, 2013.

The arbitrator concluded that the employing establishment had just cause to discipline appellant, 

but not to remove him from employment. The decision instructed that appellant’s removal be 

reduced to a suspension. The arbitrator noted that appellant’s return to work was conditional and 

based on his providing acceptable medical documentation regarding the resolution of his medical 

issues. 

On January 3, 2014 OWCP received a form, which was completed by a supervisor, 

documenting the May 16, 2012 investigation. The supervisor related that appellant was not 

completing his given work assignment and was, therefore, interviewed in a supervisor’s office 

with a steward present. He was placed on administrative leave following the interview. 

In a letter dated January 15, 2014, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence of record 

was insufficient to establish his claim. It advised him of the type of medical and factual evidence 

required to establish his claim and afforded him 30 days to provide the requested information. 

In response, OWCP received statements from appellant, statements from managers and 

coworkers, disciplinary action information, and appellant’s Equal Employment Opportunity 

complaint of discrimination. It also received additional medical evidence.

 

3 On December 26, 2013 appellant also filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2), assigned File No. 

xxxxxx005, referencing the dates April 2006 and May 16, 2012 as the dates he first became aware of his condition 

and its relationship to factors of his federal employment. He noted that the April 2006 date was the original date of 

injury. As to the May 16, 2012 date, he referenced the events he claimed on his Form CA-1 for the May 16, 2012 

date. 

4 The record contains evidence from another traumatic injury claim filed by appellant, assigned OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx098. OWCP accepted appellant’s April 5, 2004 claim for adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and 

depressed mood. It denied appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability (Form CA-2a) beginning May 16, 2012 as 

it found appellant had alleged a new factor of employment, being placed on administrative leave for failure to follow 

instructions. By decision dated October 9, 2014, the Board found that OWCP improperly denied appellant’s request 

for a merit review as he had submitted relevant and pertinent new evidence. Docket No. 14-0613 (issued 

October 9, 2014). Specifically, the Board found the arbitration decision constituted relevant and pertinent new 

evidence as the arbitrator raised the issue of whether appellant’s recurrence of disability was due to an accepted 

employment factor and not a new factor of employment. The Board noted that the arbitration decision also discussed 

the issue of administrative error with respect to appellant’s removal by the employing establishment.
3

In an October 11, 2012 report, Dr. James M. Sims, a treating psychiatrist, noted that he had

been treating appellant since 2006 for anxiety and recurrent severe major depression with 

psychotic behavior. He noted that appellant had major conflicts with his supervisor, which he 

opined aggravated his condition. Dr. Sims noted that he had recommended that appellant retire on

disability, but appellant rejected his recommendation. He observed that appellant’s condition had

worsened over the past year due to increasing conflict with his supervisor, which aggravated his 

depression and paranoia. Appellant had expressed his belief that his supervisor was attempting to 

have him fired, which then occurred on August 17, 2012. Dr. Sims recommended appellant be 

returned to work, but under a different supervisor.

In a September 16, 2013 report, Dr. Sims recommended that appellant be transferred to a 

different supervisor due to the conflict with his current supervisor. He opined that appellant was 

disabled from work due to his anxiety and major depression, recurrent episode, severe with 

psychotic behavior. Dr. Sims observed that appellant’s past conflicts with his supervisor continued

to cause him stress, as he worried about possible future contact with this supervisor. An 

October 31, 2013 progress note by Dr. Sims observed that appellant continued to be worried about 

returning to work, was worried about the world situation, and was not sleeping well. He opined 

that appellant was not ready to return to work.

By decision dated June 23, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that he failed to 

establish that his alleged emotional condition occurred in the performance of duty. Specifically, 

it found that he had not established any compensable factors of employment. OWCP accepted that 

appellant was sent home on administrative leave on May 16, 2012, but it found that this was not a

compensable factor of employment.

In a form dated July 10, 2014, appellant requested an oral hearing before an OWCP hearing 

representative, which was held on February 17, 2015.

In an October 15, 2014 report, Dr. Phillip A. Tracy, a treating Board-certified family

physician, opined that appellant continued to be totally disabled from work due to his severe 

recurrent deep depression and anxiety with psychotic features. 

On October 30, 2014 Dr. Tracy opined that appellant’s depression and anxiety were

worsening and that he continued to be disabled from work. Appellant had related that he was 

being forced out as the employing establishment cleared out his locker. 

On March 13, 2015 OWCP received a September 9, 2013 note from Dr. Sims noting 

appellant had not been released to return to work. Dr. Sims opined that appellant required a 

supervisor who understood his anxiety and depression and was not biased.

In a March 24, 2015 report, Dr. Tracy opined that appellant remained disabled from work

due to his employment-related major depression with recurrent episodes, psychosis, and general 

anxiety.

By decision dated May 7, 2015, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the June 23, 

2014 decision, as modified. She found appellant had established a compensable employment 

factor with respect to administrative error when the employing establishment terminated his 

employment. However, she denied the claim, finding that the medical evidence of record failed 
4

to establish causal relationship between the accepted employment factor and the diagnosed 

conditions.

On November 2, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional 

medical evidence. 

Dr. Sims detailed appellant’s treatment in progress notes covering the period January 6, 

2011 to July 24, 2012. On May 29, 2012 he observed that appellant was very agitated due to 

conflicts at work and expressed fear about returning to work. Dr. Sims noted that appellant 

sounded paranoid and therefore he recommended that appellant not return to work. During a 

June 18, 2012 session appellant requested a release to return to work, which Dr. Sims provided. 

On June 26, 2012 Dr. Sims reported that appellant continued to experience problems at work. In 

a July 10, 2012 session, appellant noted that he had been suspended from work. He expressed 

concern that his supervisor was attempting to get him fired. On July 24, 2012 appellant came in 

with a letter of removal from work, which he was very upset about. Dr. Sims noted that the events 

of the past few months had caused a marked deterioration in appellant’s condition.

Dr. Tracy, in the August 27, 2012 report, observed that appellant had a deepening 

depression and worsening paranoia due to a hostile work environment, which resulted in disability 

from work.

In a September 10, 2012 report, Dr. Sims noted that appellant expressed concern that he 

has been under undue observation and scrutiny for the past year by his supervisor. His diagnosis 

included recurrent major depression with psychotic features. Dr. Sims explained that this 

condition could vary in intensity and could recur at any time, particularly in times of stress. He 

opined that appellant would not fully recover, but would be able to perform his job and function 

adequately the majority of the time.

Dr. Sims, in an August 7, 2013 report, recommended that appellant be reassigned to a new 

supervisor due to conflict with his current supervisor. He noted that the reassignment would avoid 

his current stress-related anxiety caused by conflicts with his supervisor. 

In a February 3, 2014 report, Dr. Sims detailed appellant’s medical history as well as his 

history of injury. He noted that appellant’s recurrent depression and anxiety had been aggravated 

by being sent home from work on May 16, 2012. As a result of the aggravation, caused by the 

May 16, 2012 employment incident, appellant became totally disabled from work. Dr. Sims noted 

that he recommended that appellant be reassigned to a different supervisor as appellant believed 

his current supervisor created stress and conflict for him. He concluded that appellant was totally 

disabled from May 16, 2012 and it was uncertain as to when appellant could return to work.

Dr. Tracy, in a March 24, 2015 report, indicated that appellant remained disabled due to 

his work-related generalized anxiety and depression with recurrent severe episodes and mention 

of psychosis. On July 27, 2015 he reported that appellant’s psychiatric condition was stable and 

that appellant wanted to return to work.

On October 6, 2015 Dr. Tracy diagnosed unspecified anxiety, major depression with 

severe recurrent episodes with psychosis, and mixed adjustment disorder with depressed mood. 

He opined that these conditions had been aggravated by the hostile work environment and
5

harassment appellant endured at work. Dr. Tracy further opined that OWCP should have accepted 

an aggravation of his previously accepted work-related emotional condition. He concluded that 

appellant was disabled from returning to work due to the accepted work-related conditions and his 

continued stress concerning return to work. In October 28, 2015 progress report, Dr. Tracy opined 

that appellant was currently disabled due to aggravation of his work-related condition caused by 

the employing establishment’s administrative error. He noted that appellant could not work with 

his harassers as it would impede his recovery from depression and anxiety.

By decision dated February 4, 2016, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision. It 

found that the medical evidence appellant submitted failed to establish causal relationship between 

the compensable factor of administrative error and his diagnosed conditions.5

Dr. Tracy, in an April 7, 2016 report, noted that he had treated appellant for his workrelated conditions for almost 10 years. During this time, he had consistently indicated on OWCP 

forms that appellant’s interpersonal relationships were impacted by his psychiatric condition and 

affected his ability to meet deadlines and receive supervision. Dr. Tracy concluded that appellant’s 

disability as the result of his psychiatric conditions on and after May 16, 2012 was work related. 

On May 18, 2016 Dr. Tracy noted that he had treated appellant for approximately 10 years 

and was fully aware of the history appellant had with his supervisor. He opined that appellant 

sustained a worsening of his psychiatric condition following his placement on administrative leave 

on May 16, 2012. Dr. Tracy observed that appellant became depressed, withdrawn, and anxious 

due to the stress and harassment he experienced at work. He opined that the July 17, 2012 removal 

notice and the August 17, 2012 termination of appellant’s employment were directly responsible 

for aggravating his mental conditions and causing his disability.

On September 26, 2016 appellant requested reconsideration.

On October 17, 2016 OWCP received an October 30, 2015 report from Dr. Tracy in which 

he related that he had treated appellant for his work-related emotional condition for many years. 

Dr. Tracy observed that appellant had been so mistreated by his two supervisors that he was afraid 

to either look or talk to them. He opined that appellant’s anger, delusions, anxiety, and paranoia 

had been aggravated by the daily harassment and hostility he endured from these two supervisors. 

Dr. Tracy noted that the employing establishment’s administrative error in removing appellant

from his employment on May 16, 2012 increased appellant’s depression and made him anxious 

about losing his job. He concluded that there was no doubt, but that the employing establishment’s 

termination of appellant’s employment aggravated his accepted mental condition and contributed 

to his disability.

Dr. Tracy, in an October 26, 2016 report, opined that appellant continued to be totally 

disabled due to an accepted employment-related psychiatric condition, which included unspecified 

anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder with severe recurrent episodes with psychotic 

 

5 On March 15, 2016 OWCP received a notification of personnel action (SF-50) dated February 1, 2016 removing 

appellant from the employing establishment based on appellant’s being in a leave without pay status for more than 

one year. The form noted that appellant’s last day in pay status was June 17, 2012. 
6

features. He disagreed with OWCP’s characterization of appellant’s psychiatric condition as 

preexisting and self-generated.

On October 27, 2016 OWCP received a May 29, 2012 report from Dr. Sims which noted 

that appellant was seen for a follow-up examination. Dr. Sims observed that appellant was more 

depressed, and had possible paranoid ideation, which were related to the accepted diagnosis of 

recurrent major depression with psychotic features. He recommended that appellant remain off 

work for two weeks to reduce his stress level.

On November 10, 2016 OWCP received Dr. Tracy’s October 22, 2014 report, which 

diagnosed a worsening of appellant’s anxiety and depression and concluded that appellant 

remained disabled from work. By report dated December 7, 2016, Dr. Tracy opined that appellant 

was currently totally disabled from work in any capacity due to his psychiatric conditions from 

work.

In a progress note dated December 20, 2016, D. Kenneth Counts, Ph.D., a treating clinical 

psychologist, noted appellant’s history of depression and chronic pain. He diagnosed recurrent 

severe major depression without psychotic features and unspecified anxiety disorder. In a 

February 14, 2017 report, Dr. Counts noted that appellant had a long history of recurrent major 

depressive disorder. He diagnosed severe recurrent-type major depressive disorder without 

psychotic features. Dr. Counts opined that appellant was totally disabled from any type of work 

and he did not anticipate any date of full or partial recovery even though appellant’s condition was 

chronic and static.

By decision dated July 24, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship between the 

diagnosed psychiatric conditions and the accepted compensable employment factor. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To establish a claim for an emotional condition in the performance of duty, an employee 

must submit: (1) medical evidence establishing that he has an emotional or psychiatric disorder; 

(2) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused or 

contributed to his or her condition; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that 

the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to his or her emotional 

condition.6

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

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.7 Rationalized medical 

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

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

 

6 V.W., 58 ECAB 428 (2007); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

7 Y.J., Docket No. 08-1167 (issued October 7, 2008); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); D’Wayne Avila, 57 ECAB 

642 (2006).
7

compensable employment factors.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete 

factual and medical background of the employee, 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 employee.9

ANALYSIS

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

emotional condition was causally related to the accepted factor of his federal employment.10 

While it is undisputed that appellant has anxiety and depression, the Board finds that the 

medical evidence of record does not sufficiently establish a causal connection between the 

accepted employment factor regarding error in the termination of his employment, and his 

diagnosed emotional conditions.

In support of his claim appellant submitted numerous reports from Dr. Sims and Dr. Tracy 

attributing appellant’s disability on and after May 16, 2012 to an aggravation of a preexisting 

adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression. Both physicians noted that these 

conditions had been accepted under another claim and that the conditions had been aggravated by 

appellant’s removal from employment by the employing establishment. Histories and examination 

findings were provided by both physicians. However neither physician offered a medical 

explanation as to how appellant’s emotional condition was caused by the accepted employment 

factor.11 Although both Dr. Sims and Dr. Tracy supported causal relationship in their reports, they 

did not provide sufficient medical rationale explaining how the termination of appellant’s 

employment aggravated his preexisting adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression. 

The Board has held that reports which lack rationale are insufficient to meet appellant’s burden of 

proof.12

Appellant also submitted a February 14, 2017 report from Dr. Counts, a treating clinical 

psychologist, diagnosing severe recurrent major depressive disorder without psychotic features. 

Dr. Counts did not offer any opinion on the cause of the diagnosed medical conditions. A medical 

report that does not provide an opinion on causal relationship is of little probative value.13

 

8

J.J., Docket No. 09-27 (issued February 10, 2009); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379 (2006).

9

I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989).

10 See William P. George, 43 ECAB 1159, 1167 (1992).

11 See A.B., Docket No. 08-2508 (issued July 10, 2009). 

12 Supra note 9.

13 See L.M., Docket No. 14-0973 (issued August 25, 2014).
8

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing 

that his claimed conditions were caused or aggravated by the accepted compensable employment 

factor.14

On appeal appellant contends that his emotional condition was aggravated when the 

employing establishment terminated his employment. As discussed above, OWCP accepted a 

compensable factor of employment with respect to administrative error by the employing 

establishment in terminating appellant’s employment. However, none of the medical evidence 

appellant submitted contained sufficient rationale explaining how the compensable factor caused 

or aggravated the diagnosed psychiatric conditions.

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 causally related to the accepted compensable factor of his federal employment.

 

14 See supra note 10.
9

ORDER

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

Programs dated July 24, 2017 is affirmed.

Issued: March 27, 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