United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.V., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS ADMINISTATION MEDICAL 

CENTER, Riviera Beach, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0006

Issued: September 19, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 1, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 18, 2018 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. 

ISSUE

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

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 25, 2018 appellant, then a 55-year-old security assistant, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that “he started a new job in an office environment where the 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

people he had to work with caused him a lot of stress.” He first became aware of his emotional 

condition and attributed it to factors of his federal employment on April 23, 2018. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted progress notes dated May 21 and 23, 2018 

from Melanie Hemmingsen, a physician assistant.

In an April 4, 2018 e-mail to appellant, J.R., Chief of Police Service, indicated that he 

addressed “the issue” with J.B. and inquired with appellant as to whether there had been any other 

issues. Appellant responded indicating that he had noticed an improvement in J.B.’s demeanor 

and that it was a very good day in the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) office. He also provided 

a May 30, 2018 e-mail addressed to a “PIV Card User” indicating that a PIV card was ready for 

pick up. Appellant copied J.R. and J.B. on this e-mail. J.R. replied and asked why appellant sent 

the e-mail to him. Appellant indicated that J.B. had instructed him to do so. In a June 4, 2018 

e-mail, appellant’s union president, G.B., reported that appellant felt that he was working in a 

hostile work environment and requested to be temporarily relocated as he no longer felt safe in his 

present work area.

In a development letter dated August 9, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that additional 

factual and medical evidence was needed to establish his emotional condition claim. It advised 

him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit additional evidence. Appellant did not 

respond.

By decision dated September 18, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim, finding that he had not established the factual elements of his occupational disease claim.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty, as alleged, and that any 

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

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 

 

2

Id. 

3 A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); see T.O., Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

October 29, 2018); see Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).
3

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

the diagnosed emotional condition.5 

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment.6 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.7 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.8

Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the 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.9 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.10 

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.11

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

there must be probative and reliable evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur.12 

Mere perceptions of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.13

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 

 

5 See S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014); 

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

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

622 (2006).

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

125 (1976).

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

9 See G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018); Andrew J. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170-71 (2001), 52 

ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990); reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

10 See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); D.R., Docket No. 16-0605 (issued October 17, 2016); 

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

11 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).

12 T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019); Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003).

13 Id.; see also Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001).
4

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 compensable factors of 

employment and may not be considered.14 If an employee does implicate a factor of employment, 

OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor. As a rule, 

allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an emotional 

condition claim. The claim must be supported by probative evidence.15 If a compensable factor 

of employment is substantiated, OWCP must base its decision on an analysis of the medical 

evidence which has been submitted.16

ANALYSIS

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

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, finding that he had not established 

compensable employment factors. The Board must, thus, initially review whether these alleged 

incidents and conditions of employment are covered 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 Lillian Cutler.

17

 Rather, appellant has alleged difficult relationships at work and a 

hostile working environment resulted in his stress.

Difficult relationships with supervisors and coworkers, when sufficiently detailed by the 

claimant and supported by the record, may constitute factors of employment. This does not imply, 

however, that every statement uttered in the workplace will give rise to coverage under FECA.18 

Appellant did not provide a detailed statement describing the employment events which he felt 

caused or contributed to his alleged emotional condition. He provided a general statement on his 

claim form that the people he worked with caused him stress. Appellant did not further describe 

the events or actions that he felt were stressful and did not provide specific dates or times that the 

events or actions occurred or who carried out the stressful activities. Furthermore, he did not 

submit evidence to establish his allegations.19 Therefore, appellant has not established difficult 

working relationships as a compensable factor of employment.

In support of his emotional condition claim, appellant submitted an e-mail from his union 

president alleging that appellant felt that he was working in a hostile working environment and felt 

unsafe at work. The Board finds that appellant submitted no evidence corroborating his allegations 

 

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

15 J.Q., Docket No. 17-1276 (issued December 27, 2017); Charles E. McAndrews, 55 ECAB 711 (2004).

16 V.R., Docket No. 18-1179 (issued June 11, 2019); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992). 

17 S.K., supra note 5; 28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

18 Y.B., Docket No. 16-0194 (issued July 24, 2018).

19 Supra note 15.
5

of a hostile work environment or harassment.20 Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination 

are not compensable. Appellant must establish a basis in fact for the claim by supporting his 

allegations with probative and reliable evidence.21 Here again, the record contains no specific 

allegations and no corroborating evidence that he was exposed to hostility in his workplace.22 

Thus, appellant has failed to establish these allegations as factual. 

As appellant has not established a compensable factor of employment, the Board need not 

consider the medical evidence of record.23 As such, he has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit additional evidence, together with a written request for 

reconsideration, to OWCP within one year of the Board’s 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, as alleged.

 

20 M.C., Docket No. 18-0585 (issued February 13, 2019).

21 Id.; Curtis Hall, 45 ECAB 316 (1994); Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496 (1992).

22 C.V., Docket No. 18-0580 (issued September 17, 2018).

23 Supra note 16.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 18, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: September 19, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board