United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, LITTLE ROCK 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER, 

Little Rock, AR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1721

Issued: June 17, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Paul Felser, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 14, 2019 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 17, 2019 

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. 

 

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

ISSUE

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

condition while in the performance of duty on September 29, 2017, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 25, 2017 appellant, then a 67-year-old mail handler equipment operator, filed 

a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 29, 2017 he developed 

“emotional stress” as a result of being fired and having the postal inspectors and local police called 

on him while in the performance of duty. He stopped work on October 24, 2017. 

In an October 25, 2017 statement, appellant noted that on September 29, 2017 he had a 

meeting at 8:00 a.m. and during the meeting protested disparate treatment by kneeling on one knee. 

He noted that M.E., a supervisor for distribution operations, ended the meeting abruptly. Appellant 

indicated that 10 minutes later M.E. called him back into the office and told him to punch off the 

clock because he was fired for protesting in the meeting. He reported that he refused to punch off 

the clock so M.E. called the local police and postal inspectors. Appellant explained that since that 

incident he had not been able to sleep or eat and had nightmares, constipation, headaches, anxiety, 

anger, and impotency. He noted that his doctor had informed him that he had post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD). Appellant indicated that he was returned to work because the employing 

establishment had violated his constitutional rights, but he was put in an environment where the

“big guns” were watching him.

In an October 24, 2017 note, Dr. Derek Lewis, a Board-certified family practitioner, 

requested that appellant be excused from work from October 24 through November 7, 2017 due 

to a medical illness.

In a development letter dated October 30, 2017, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

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

evidence necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for completion. OWCP

also asked appellant to provide witness statements or evidence from anyone who could verify his 

allegations and explain how the incidents had caused or contributed to his condition. It afforded 

him 30 days to provide the necessary information.

In a separate letter, also dated October 30, 2017, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment provide details regarding appellant’s claim and whether they concurred with his 

allegations. 

Appellant submitted a November 6, 2017 work status note and attending physician’s report 

(Form CA-20) by Dr. Lewis who noted a September 29, 2017 date of injury and described that a 

“traumatic event triggered [patient’s] PTSD.” He explained that appellant was arrested and 

dragged out of his workplace because he “took a knee.”

By decision dated November 30, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that he actually experienced the 

September 29, 2017 incident, as alleged, and therefore had not established the factual component 
3

of fact of injury. It noted that he had failed to respond to OWCP’s October 30, 2017 development 

letter or complete the attached questionnaire. 

Following the decision, OWCP received a November 15, 2017 statement from appellant’s 

supervisor, M.E. M.E. explained that on September 28, 2017 appellant was on the clock eating 

breakfast in the breakroom when he instructed appellant to load the “northwest ark truck.” He

alleged that appellant began to argue with him and he informed appellant that if he did not follow 

instructions then he would end appellant’s tour. M.E. noted that on September 29, 2017, during 

the daily five-minute “stand up meeting” at the beginning of the tour, appellant knelt down in 

protest and extended his left arm straight up in the air with his fist clenched. He indicated that he 

went back to his office and sent two e-mails. M.E reported that after approximately 10 minutes he 

requested that appellant come into his office. He noted that he informed appellant that he was 

giving him an “Official Discussion” concerning his actions during the meeting. M.E. asserted that 

appellant threatened to “hit,” “beat,” and “murder” him. He indicated that he told appellant that 

he was ending his tour and that he needed to leave. M.E. explained that when appellant refused to 

leave, he contacted the local police department and the postal inspectors.

On December 14, 2017 appellant requested a telephonic hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

3

 He also submitted his completed development 

questionnaire, wherein he noted that on September 28, 2017 he was verbally assaulted by M.E. 

who told him to shut up or else he would be fired. Appellant indicated that after the incident he 

was too nervous and upset to perform his duties as a forklift driver. He also described that on 

September 29, 2017 he was put in nonpay status because he knelt down during a meeting in protest 

of disparate treatment. Appellant noted that the local police and postal inspectors were called and 

he was escorted out of the building. He reported that the postal inspectors came to his house later 

that same day to retrieve his keys and badge, which humiliated him in front of his neighbors. 

Appellant asserted that he experienced nightmares, sleepless nights, panic attacks, and anger 

attacks following the September 29, 2017 events. 

Appellant also submitted additional evidence, including witness statements. In an undated

handwritten statement, J.M., a tour II group leader, stated that during a stand-up talk by M.E. on 

September 29, 2017 he observed appellant kneel down on one knee and raise his hand in protest 

at the way that he had been treated. He indicated that approximately 20 minutes later M.E. stormed 

out of his office toward appellant, who was driving a forklift, and ordered him off the clock. J.M. 

noted that he did not hear appellant threaten or make any kind of gesture toward M.E.

In an October 2, 2017 e-mail, A.T., an OSS In-Plant support, indicated that on 

September 28, 2017 M.E. informed him that he had a problem with appellant and that if appellant 

did anything else then he would put appellant off the clock. He explained that around 9:30 a.m.

he observed M.E. lean into appellant’s face to speak to him and that appellant did not appear to 

like what M.E. had said. A.T. confirmed that this was not the first time that M.E. had singled out 

a certain individual because M.E. thought that individual had been on break more than the allotted 

 

3

In a December 27, 2017 letter, appellant requested to withdraw his request for an oral hearing. By decision dated 

December 28, 2017, OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review granted appellant’s request to withdraw his hearing 

request.
4

time. He explained that most of the issues concerning employees at the employing establishment 

postal annex were a result of M.E.

In an October 3, 2017 handwritten statement, T.B. indicated that on “October 28, 2017”

M.E. entered the breakroom and instructed appellant to get out of the breakroom and onto the 

workroom floor. She explained that from her perspective as a supervisor his behavior was very 

unprofessional and created a hostile work environment. T.B. confirmed that on “October 29, 

2017” appellant knelt in protest during a meeting without saying a word.

In an October 3, 2017 statement, J.M. explained that on September 28, 2017 he was in the 

breakroom when he observed M.E. yell at appellant to go to work. He indicated that M.E. yelled 

at appellant to “shut up” or he would put him off the clock and fire him right then. J.M. stated that 

he thought M.E.’s behavior was very unprofessional and should not be tolerated in the employing 

establishment.

OWCP received an employing establishment standard grievance form dated September 28, 

2017 by appellant. Appellant described that on that date M.E. yelled at him in the breakroom in 

front of several employees and threatened to fire him. He asserted that he felt threatened by M.E.’s 

racial overtone in his words and that he feared for his safety, his job, and his life. Appellant also 

alleged that M.E. had continually stalked and harassed him since a previous altercation.

Appellant also submitted an October 3, 2017 standard grievance form which described an 

incident when M.E. informed the postal inspector that appellant had threatened to kill him. The 

standard grievance form noted that a witness, J.M., had informed the postal inspectors that 

appellant had not made any threatening motion or said that he was going to kill M.E.

Appellant submitted an agreement to mediate letter dated December 5, 2017. He also 

provided a December 5, 2017 no agreement letter, which indicated that appellant and M.E. had 

appeared for their scheduled mediation, but they were unable to find a resolution to their dispute. 

On January 3, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration and submitted additional evidence. 

In a December 21, 2017 narrative report, Dr. Kenneth Counts, a clinical psychologist and 

neuropsychologist, indicated that appellant was experiencing low energy levels, anxiety, and 

worry and was having difficulty with concentration, memory, and sleeping at night. He diagnosed 

adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Dr. Counts opined that the cause of 

his current condition was the trauma that he experienced at work and being unable to continue to 

work and suffering both financially and emotionally.

OWCP also received a September 29, 2017 letter from M.E. to appellant, which advised 

appellant that he had been placed on emergency nonpay, off-duty status due to allegations of 

improper conduct and that the allegations would be pending an investigation. An October 13, 

2017 letter from the employing establishment to appellant also informed him that an investigative 

interview was scheduled for October 17, 2017.

By decision dated April 5, 2018, OWCP modified the November 30, 2017 decision finding

that the factual evidence of record had established that the September 29, 2017 events had 
5

occurred, as alleged. However, it denied appellant’s claim finding that he had not established a 

compensable employment factor as the cause of his alleged emotional condition.

On April 4, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration. 

Appellant submitted additional evidence in support of his reconsideration request. In a 

statement dated January 9, 2019, he contended that the employing establishment took two 

individuals from a three-person job and asked him to do the work of three. Appellant explained 

that he worked under duress and the daily pressure to perform the job of three men or he would be 

fired. He also asserted that M.E. bullied, harassed, and stalked him daily to the point that he now 

suffered from anxiety, depression, PTSD, and depressive disorder. Appellant further explained 

that while low mail volume affected the mail clerks, it had not affected a mail handler’s job of 

loading trucks, bulk mail containers (BMC), and pallets because the same amount of pallets were 

loaded onto a truck no matter how much mail is on them.

In an October 24, 2017 statement, J.M., explained that he was a mail handler and union 

steward and asserted that M.E. abused his power daily from August to September 2017 to threaten, 

bully, and harass appellant into performing the work of three individuals. He explained that he 

had advised appellant to file a grievance with the postal inspector because he saw appellant suffer 

from depression, anxiety, and panic attacks from the duress and pressure from M.E. J.M. indicated 

that he was present on September 29, 2017 when appellant knelt down on one knee during a 

meeting and described M.E.’s subsequent actions towards appellant. He explained that M.E. 

became agitated and called the local police and postal inspectors. J.M. reported that he was also 

present when the postal inspectors came to appellant’s home. He noted that appellant was very 

upset and had a panic attack. 

In an October 24, 2017 letter, J.W., appellant’s coworker at the employing establishment’s 

annex, indicated that he worked with appellant and had observed him being ordered to perform the 

work of two or three workers due to downsizing of the workforce and excessing of jobs. He 

explained that the low mail volume had not affected appellant’s job in loading trucks because 

appellant still had to load the same amount of BMC’s, wires, pallets, and cages whether or not they 

were full. J.W. reported that M.E. had threatened, bullied, and stalked appellant. He observed that 

appellant started having panic attacks, anxiety, depression, and could not function due to the duress 

and pressure from M.E.

OWCP also received additional progress notes dated March 15 to June 18, 2018 by

Dr. Counts who reported a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed 

mood. In narrative reports dated May 24 to November 14, 2018, Dr. Counts noted that appellant 

had felt bullied and threatened, and the work environment was hostile. He opined that appellant 

had significant job-related stress that caused a deteriorating effect on his mood, thought, and 

behavior. Dr. Counts reported that appellant’s work-related injury had not resolved nor improved

and that appellant was unable to work at that time due to his mood disorder.

Appellant submitted a February 23, 2016 settlement agreement. It specifically noted that,

by entering into this settlement agreement, neither party had waived its respective position. A 

February 23, 2016 letter also noted that both parties had mutually agreed that appellant would be 

paid back for 96 hours.
6

OWCP received an August 10, 2017 letter from the employing establishment to appellant, 

which informed him that due to a loss of mail volume a job held by a senior employee was 

abolished and he needed to submit an in-section bidding sheet.

By decision dated June 17, 2019, OWCP denied modification of the April 5, 2018 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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.5 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.6

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.7 

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment.8 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.9 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.10

 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

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

6 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).

7 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).

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

622 (2006).

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

125 (1976).

10 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).
7

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.11 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.12 

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.13

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.14 

Mere perceptions of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.15

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 compensable factors of 

employment and may not be considered.16 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.17 If a compensable factor 

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

evidence which has been submitted.18

ANALYSIS

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

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

employment incidents and work conditions. OWCP denied his emotional condition claim finding 

that he had not established a compensable employment factor. The Board must, therefore, initially 

 

11 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).

12 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).

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

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

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

16 Y.W., Docket No. 19-1877 (issued April 30, 2020); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

17 L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020); Charles E. McAndrews, 55 ECAB 711 (2004).

18 M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992). 
8

review whether these alleged incidents are covered employment factors under the terms of 

FECA.19 

Appellant has alleged that he was overworked as he was required to perform the work of 

two or three individuals. The Board has held that overwork, when substantiated by sufficient 

factual information to corroborate appellant’s account of events may be a compensable factor of 

employment.20 Appellant explained that the employing establishment took away two men from a 

three-man job and he was under the daily pressure to perform the job of three men. He further 

indicated that, while low mail volume affected the mail clerks, he was still required to load the 

same number of trucks, mail containers, and pallets onto a truck. Appellant substantiated his 

account by statements of his coworker, J.W., who reported that he had observed appellant being 

ordered to perform the work of two or three men due to downsizing in the workforce. Moreover, 

an August 10, 2017 letter by the employing establishment also indicated that a more senior job 

position was eliminated. OWCP had determined that the fact that a job position was eliminated 

due to lower mail volume showed that appellant was not overworked. The Board notes, however, 

that appellant submitted supportive evidence that the elimination of staff resulted in overwork as 

the same number of containers were moved during the shift, despite an alleged reduction in overall 

volume of mail. Furthermore, both appellant and his coworkers have explained that a lower mail 

volume would not affect appellant’s duties operating a fork lift as he was still required to move 

the same amount of pallets and containers. 

The Board finds that appellant has met his burden of proof to establish the compensable 

factor of overwork. 

Appellant has also attributed his emotional stress to a hostile work environment alleging 

that he had been harassed, bullied, and threatened by his supervisor, M.E. He specifically 

described events that occurred at work on September 28 and 29, 2017. Appellant reported that on 

September 28, 2017 he was in the breakroom when M.E. yelled at him in front of everyone to get 

back to work. He indicated that M.E. told him to shut up or else he would be fired. 

Appellant submitted several witness statements regarding the pattern of harassment and 

verbal abuse from M.E. Regarding the September 28, 2017 incident in the breakroom, OWCP 

received statements from A.T. and T.B. who noted that on that date, M.E. entered the breakroom 

and instructed appellant to go onto the workroom floor. A.T. claimed that this was not the first 

time that M.E. had singled out a certain individual and indicated that most of the issues concerning 

employees at the postal annex stemmed from M.E.’s actions. In an October 3, 2017 statement, 

J.M. also explained that on September 28, 2017 he was in the breakroom when he observed M.E. 

yell at appellant to “shut up” and get to work or else be fired. Both T.B. and J.M. explained that 

they found M.E.’s behavior to be unprofessional and created a hostile work environment. 

Appellant further described that on September 29, 2017 he knelt down on one knee during 

an 8:00 a.m. meeting in protest of the disparate treatment. He indicated that M.E. abruptly ended 

 

19 Supra note 16.

20 W.F., Docket No. 18-1526 (issued November 26, 2019); I.P., Docket No. 17-1178 (issued June 12, 2018); 

William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).
9

the meeting, subsequently called appellant to his office, and told him to punch off the clock due to 

improper conduct during the meeting. Appellant explained that, when he refused to leave, M.E. 

called the local police and postal inspectors to put him out of the building. He further related that 

when he got home postal inspectors came to his house to obtain his keys and badge. 

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

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

employee’s performance of his or her regular duties, these could constitute employment factors.21 

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

there must be evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur.22 Verbal altercations 

and difficult relationships with supervisors/managers, when sufficiently detailed and supported by 

the record, may constitute compensable factors of employment. However, this does not imply that 

every ostensibly abusive or threatening statement uttered in the workplace will give rise to 

coverage under FECA.23 A claimant must establish a factual basis for his or her allegations that 

the harassment occurred with probative and reliable evidence.24 

Regarding the September 29, 2017 incident, appellant submitted statements from J.M. who 

explained that he had observed M.E. threaten, bully, and harass appellant from August to 

September 2017. He noted that he was present on September 29, 2017 when appellant knelt down 

in protest during a meeting and observed that M.E. became agitated and called the local police and 

postal inspectors. J.M. noted that appellant had not threatened anyone or made any kind of gesture 

toward M.E. He reported that he was also present when the postal inspectors came to appellant’s 

home and observed that appellant was very upset and had a panic attack. 

The evidence of record demonstrates that M.E.’s calling of the police and postal 

investigators on September 29, 2017 was part of his pattern of harassment and abusive behavior. 

Furthermore, the statements do not support M.E.’s version of the story. Thus, the Board finds that 

appellant has submitted reliable and supportive evidence corroborating M.E.’s abusive conduct 

and mistreatment of appellant on September 28 and 29, 2017 and his pattern of harassment.25 

Appellant, therefore, has established compensable employment factors with respect to these 

allegations of harassment and discrimination.

The Board finds that appellant has established compensable employment factors with 

respect to overwork and his allegations of harassment by M.E., his supervisor, regarding his 

actions on September 28 and 29, 2017. Thus, OWCP must base its decision on analysis of the 

medical opinion evidence with regard to causal relationship. The Board will therefore remand the 

case for OWCP to review the medical evidence as it relates to the accepted compensable factors 

 

21 Supra note 11.

22 Supra note 12.

23 J.M., Docket No. 16-0717 (issued January 12, 2017), Y.J., Docket No. 15-1137 (issued October 4, 2016); L.M., 

Docket No. 13-0267 (issued November 15, 2013).

24 Supra note 14.

25 See D.H., Docket No. 17-1529 (issued February 14, 2018); see also E.M., Docket No. 16-1695 (issued 

June 27, 2017).
10

of employment.26 Following this and such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it 

shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 17, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: June 17, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

26 See T.Y., Docket No. 19-0654 (issued November 5, 2019); T.F., Docket No. 12-0439 (issued August 20, 2012).