United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.O., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

McLouth, KS, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1047

Issued: November 13, 2019

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 April 10, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 2, 2019 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 this case.2

ISSUE

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

condition in the performance of duty on January 29, 2019 as alleged. 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the April 2, 2019 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that 

was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board 

for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional 

evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 14, 2019 appellant, then a 50-year-old sales services distribution associate, 

filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 29, 2019 she developed 

anxiety after receiving a telephone call regarding the return of a postmaster, who she alleged had 

assaulted a letter carrier. She stated that she was afraid to go to work as she would be required to 

work alone with this postmaster. A witness, K.K., indicated on the claim form that she had made 

the telephone call to appellant. Appellant stopped work on January 30, 2019. On the reverse side 

of the claim form, the employing establishment controverted the claim indicating that there was 

no proof that she sustained an injury as a result of a telephone call. 

In a report dated January 29, 2019, Dr. Darin Elo, a Board-certified emergency room 

physician, related that appellant was seen that day for anxiety. 

In a development letter dated March 4, 2019, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies 

in her claim and explained the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim. 

It requested additional factual and medical evidence and provided a questionnaire for her 

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP received additional evidence. In a January 29, 2019 narrative report, Dr. Elo 

diagnosed anxiety/nerves and sweats as the reason for appellant’s visit. He noted that she had 

explained that she became afraid after learning that she had to work with another employee who 

had anger issues with fellow employees. 

In a January 31, 2019 emergency room form, Kerry McClay, a licensed social worker, 

diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxiety. She related that appellant had explained that an 

employee she believed was dangerous had been assigned to work at her employing establishment. 

Ms. McClay related that this individual had previous volatile incidents including a recent incident 

during which he dislocated a fellow employee’s shoulder. Appellant had related being fearful of 

this individual as he enjoyed talking about violence. 

In an e-mail dated April 7, 2017, appellant informed her supervisor that she did not want 

to be left alone with R.H. because she was afraid of him. She related that K.K. had informed her 

of an incident during which R.H. appeared visibly upset. Appellant related that she was told by 

K.K. that R.H. had “gotten into it” with one of the letter carriers. She alleged that R.H. enjoyed

harassing people and she indicated that she should not be required to work alone with R.H. as he 

was angry with her because “he can’t have my job.” 

In a March 22, 2019 report, Ms. McClay diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxiety due 

to fears at being forced to work with a postmaster she considered abusive. 

On March 22, 2019 appellant completed the questionnaire and noted that she had worked 

for R.H. before, and his behavior was unprofessional. She noted that he returned to work at the

employing establishment on January 30, 2019. Appellant stated that she had been notified at 

approximately 2:30 p.m. on January 29, 2019 by K.K. that she would be working with R.H. on his 

return to the employing establishment. 
3

In an April 1, 2019 statement, the employing establishment denied appellant’s allegations 

that R.H. had assaulted an employee on August 9, 2018. It explained that two employees had

complained to R.H. that more staff was needed to get the work done. The employing establishment 

denied that an assault had occurred. It explained that it had, by then, placed R.H. on a detail at 

another location. The employing establishment noted that at no time did appellant allege that he

assaulted or threatened her. 

By decision April 2, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim as she had failed to establish

the factual element of fact of injury. It further found the medical evidence insufficient to meet the 

burden of proof. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,3that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to the employment injury.4 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

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

(1) factual evidence identifying an employment factor or incident alleged to have caused or 

contributed to his or her claimed emotional condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or 

she has a diagnosed emotional or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion 

evidence establishing that the accepted compensable employment factors are causally related to 

the diagnosed emotional condition.6

Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is 

somehow related to an employee’s employment.7 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 

 

3 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

4

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

5 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

6 G.J., Docket No. 19-0801 (issued September 16, 2019); see S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); 

Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

7 T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019); L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 

622 (2006).
4

employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.8 On the other hand, the disability 

is not covered when it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force or 

his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a 

particular position.9

ANALYSIS

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

condition in the performance of duty on January 29, 2019 as alleged.

Appellant has not related her anxiety and disability to the performance of her regular work 

duties on January 29, 2019. She alleged that she learned by telephone call on January 29, 2019 

that R.H. would be returning to her work location. Appellant explained that she was afraid of him

because he had previously dislocated a coworker’s shoulder. She has not asserted, and there is no 

evidence of record, that R.H. had threatened or caused her physical harm. Appellant’s concern 

that she would be working with him, which she asserted would be a dangerous work environment,

was based on her anticipation of danger after discovering that he would be returning to work. The 

Board has held that fear-of-future injury is not compensable.10 This is true even if the employee 

is found to be medically disqualified to continue employment because of the anticipated 

employment factors. The fear that one might sustain further injury is self-generated and is not 

compensable.11

As appellant has not established that she was actually threatened by R.H., the Board finds 

that her fear-of-future injury does not constitute a compensable injury under FECA. Therefore, 

she has not met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained an emotional condition in the 

performance of duty on January 29, 2019, as alleged. As appellant did not establish 

compensability, the Board need not consider the medical evidence of record.12

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 her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty on January 29, 2019.

 

8 L.H., Docket No. 18-1217 (issued May 3, 2019); Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 

125 (1976).

9 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

10 See R.L., Docket No. 18-1462 (issued May 9, 2019); R.H., Docket No. 13-1193 (issued May 29, 2014); B.R.,

Docket No. 12-1943 (issued July 24, 2013).

11 R.H., id.; Joseph G. Cutrufello, 46 ECAB 285 (1994).

12 See D.A., Docket No. 18-1715 (issued May 24, 2019); Katherine A. Berg, 54 ECAB 262 (2002).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 2, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 13, 2019

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