United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RICHMOND 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Sandston, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1517

Issued: March 6, 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 July 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 13, 2017 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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 causally related to factors of his federal employment.

 

1 Appellant timely requested oral argument pursuant to section 501.5(b) of Board’s Rules of Procedure. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). By order dated December 18, 2017, the Board exercised its discretion and denied the request, 

finding that the arguments on appeal could adequately be addressed based on the case record. Order Denying 

Request for Oral Argument, Docket No. 17-1517 (issued December 18, 2017). 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

On appeal appellant maintains that the medical evidence submitted is sufficient to 

establish his claim. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.

3

 The facts and circumstances as 

presented in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On May 30, 2013 appellant, then a 56-year-old supervisor of maintenance operations 

(SMO), filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that working alone on 

weekends and at night with an understaffed, unqualified, and untrained workforce caused workrelated stress and anxiety disorders. He indicated that he first became aware of his illness on 

May 14, 2013 and of its relationship to his federal employment on May 28, 2013. Appellant’s

regular work hours on Tour 1 were from 9:45 p.m. to 6:45 a.m. Sunday through Thursday. In an 

attached narrative statement, he related that, from January 14 to February 24, 2013, he was the 

only supervisor on Tour 1 over the weekends when he averaged 10.5 hours daily, without a lunch 

break, and that he also worked long hours during the regular work week. Appellant indicated 

that he had similar work-related stress in 2005. 

In May 2013 the employing establishment referred appellant to the District Reasonable 

Accommodation Committee (DRAC) to consider whether an accommodation for his medical 

condition was appropriate. The record also includes evidence concerning an investigation and 

appellant’s subsequent removal for an incident when he punched a toolbox, and other incidents 

when he allegedly threatened acts of violence and made comments about shooting or killing. 

This included a May 24, 2013 notice of enforced leave that described a postal inspector interview 

with appellant. The enforced leave was finalized on July 25, 2013. 

The relevant medical evidence includes a March 27, 2013 report in which Edward A. 

Peck, III, Ph.D., noted performing psychological testing. He reported a history that appellant had 

service-related knee and head injuries, and claimed disability dating to 2005 when appellant had 

mental health treatment.4 Following testing, Dr. Peck indicated that there was a consistent 

pattern of reporting from others which indicated that there was an elevated probability that 

appellant displayed mental health and/or behavioral issues which could lead to an increased 

potential for disruption in the workplace. He advised that appellant should not return to work 

due to this threat potential, and opined that there was no indication that his work itself caused his 

mental health condition to develop and/or worsen. Dr. Peck recommended anger management 

therapy.

In a May 30, 2013 report, Dr. Shireesha Narla, a Board-certified internist, diagnosed 

hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and generalized anxiety disorder and possible post-

 

3 Docket No. 16-1443 (issued February 23, 2017).

4 The record includes information regarding appellant’s 2005 psychiatric diagnosis. By decision dated 

July 20, 2006, OWCP denied a claim filed on September 16, 2005, adjudicated under File No. xxxxxx809. The 

instant case was adjudicated by OWCP under File No. xxxxxx865.
3

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She indicated that a mental health clinic should assess 

appellant’s needs for his psychiatric disorders and that his medical diagnoses required 

monitoring and medication. 

In a report dated July 24, 2013, Dr. Lajuana M. Collins-Morgan, a Board-certified 

psychiatrist, noted that appellant was hospitalized from July 15 to 20, 2013.5 She diagnosed 

bipolar disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD (provisional), prescribed medication, and 

advised that appellant was incapacitated from February 23, 2013 to present, noting that appellant 

had not fully recovered and could not return to work. 

By decision dated December 4, 2013, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant did 

not establish a compensable factor of employment. 

Appellant timely requested a hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of 

Hearings and Review. OWCP received an undated report from Dr. Suresh Gharse, a psychiatrist,

who provided a fitness-for-duty examination. Dr. Gharse noted appellant’s 2005 psychiatric 

history and advised that appellant was stressed because he felt he was always short-staffed and 

had to run around to get work done, which was beyond his capacity. He maintained that 

appellant was losing control, which was compromising his ability to deal with work in a rational 

manner, and that he needed to be transferred to another area with less stress. Dr. Gharse noted 

that appellant felt that others were getting away with shady performance and strange practices 

and that he denied making threats to anyone. He diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxiety and 

possible mood or bipolar disorder. Dr. Gharse advised that appellant was not fit to work at the 

current location, but could work in another area of the employing establishment where he would 

feel that he could handle the stress and work, and management could realistically address the 

situation with, for example, increased manpower or increased training. He opined that appellant 

did not pose a clear and direct threat to an identifiable target. Dr. Gharse concluded that 

appellant was suffering from work-related anxiety and angrily reacting to stress, noting that 

appellant was feeling overwhelmed and cornered by his coworkers and supervisors. He

indicated that appellant clearly needed psychotherapy and perhaps medication along with 

appropriate changes at work. 

On November 3, 2014 an OWCP hearing representative set aside the December 4, 2013 

decision and remanded the case for OWCP to obtain information from the employing 

establishment regarding appellant’s supervisory duties and staffing. The employing 

establishment furnished additional information, including a lengthy statement from J.Y., 

maintenance manager. By decision dated May 4, 2015, OWCP denied the claim finding that, as 

appellant had not established a compensable employment factor, he did not sustain an injury in 

the performance of duty.

On May 18, 2015 appellant requested a hearing. On June 5, 2015 he requested subpoenas 

for employing establishment records and for personal testimony of named employing 

establishment personnel. In a January 5, 2016 letter, an OWCP hearing representative denied 

appellant’s subpoena requests. In a February 22, 2016 decision, she modified the May 4, 2014 

decision, finding that appellant had established that he worked as the lone supervisor on some 

 

5 The record includes discharge plans from this hospitalization.
4

occasions. The hearing representative reviewed the medical evidence of record, but denied the 

claim because the evidence did not establish that his diagnosed condition was caused by that one 

accepted employment factor. She also advised that appellant could appeal the decision if he 

disagreed with the denial of the requested subpoenas.

By February 23, 2017 decision, the Board found that OWCP properly denied appellant’s 

subpoena request.6 The Board, however, set aside OWCP’s February 22, 2016 denial of the 

claim, and remanded the case to OWCP to analyze and develop the medical evidence. OWCP

found that the case was not in posture for decision with respect to the emotional condition issue, 

as the evidence of record established two compensable factors of employment -- that he 

frequently had to work as the sole SMO on busy Tour 1, and that Tour 1 was understaffed. The 

Board indicated that OWCP must base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence as it 

related to those two factors. After such further development, OWCP was to issue a de novo

decision on the merits of appellant’s claim. 

Appellant did not submit additional evidence after OWCP’s February 22, 2016 decision.

By decision dated June 13, 2017, OWCP found the medical evidence of record 

insufficient to establish that appellant’s claimed emotional condition was causally related to the 

accepted compensable factors of employment.7

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty, a claimant must submit 

the following: (1) medical evidence establishing that he or she 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 or her stress-related 

condition.8 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, OWCP should then determine 

whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor.9 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.10

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish 

causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence.11 The opinion of the physician must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable 

 

6 Supra note 3.

7 OWCP initially denied the claim by decision dated May 24, 2017. However, as appeal rights were not included 

with the May 24, 2017 decision, OWCP reissued it on June 13, 2017.

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

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

10 Id.

11 Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).
5

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.12 Neither the mere fact that a disease or condition manifests itself during a period 

of employment, nor the belief that the disease or condition was caused or aggravated by 

employment factors or incidents is sufficient to establish causal relationship.13

ANALYSIS

Appellant, who alleged that employment factors caused an emotional condition, has 

established two compensable factors of employment. The factors are that he frequently had to 

work as the sole SMO on busy Tour 1, and that Tour 1 was understaffed. The medical evidence

of record, therefore, must be analyzed as it relates to these two factors.14

In his March 27, 2013 report, Dr. Peck opined that work did not cause appellant’s mental 

health condition. Neither Dr. Narla, nor Dr. Collins-Morgan provided an opinion on the cause of 

appellant’s diagnosed emotional condition. The Board has long held that medical evidence that 

does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship.15 These opinions are, therefore, insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof to establish that his emotional condition is caused by the two 

accepted employment factors.

Nonetheless, the Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision. In his report,

Dr. Gharse, who diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxiety and possible mood or bipolar 

disorder, noted that appellant indicated that he was short-staffed and was forced to work beyond 

his capacity. He indicated that appellant could not work at the current location, but could work 

in another area where he would feel less stressed and that management could realistically address 

the situation with, for example, increased manpower or increased training. Dr. Gharse opined 

that appellant was suffering from work-related anxiety and indicated that he clearly needed 

psychotherapy and perhaps medication along with appropriate changes at work.

The Board finds that Dr. Gharse provided an affirmative opinion on causal relationship 

and accurately identified accepted compensable employment factors. While Dr. Gharse’s 

opinion is not sufficiently rationalized to meet appellant’s burden of proof, it is sufficient to 

require further development of the medical evidence.16

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and 

OWCP is not a disinterested arbiter.17 While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish 

 

12 Supra note 8; Gary L. Fowler, 45 ECAB 365 (1994).

13 Dennis M. Mascarenas, 49 ECAB 215 (1997).

14 Supra note 9.

15 Willie M. Miller, 53 ECAB 697 (2002).

16 See J.J., Docket No. 16-1580 (issued April 4, 2017).

17 See Vanessa Young, 56 ECAB 575 (2004).
6

entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares responsibility in the development of the evidence 

and to see that justice is done.18 Thus, the Board will remand the case to OWCP for further 

development to obtain a rationalized medical opinion as to whether appellant’s emotional 

condition is causally related to the accepted compensable employment factors. After this and 

such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 13, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded to OWCP for 

proceedings consistent with this opinion of the Board.

Issued: March 6, 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

 

18 Supra note 9.