United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

West Sacramento, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0231

Issued: August 27, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 4, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 15, 2020 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a stress-related

condition on September 30, 2019 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the June 15, 2020 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 October 10, 2019 appellant, then a 55-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on September 2019 he experienced a panic attack after a customer 

threatened to shoot him. He returned to the employing establishment facility and required medical 

treatment for a panic attack. Appellant stopped work that day.

On October 7, 2019 Dr. Mihir Jittendra Amin, a Board-certified internist, indicated that 

appellant was disabled from work from September 30 through October 9, 2019.

The record contains one page from an employing establishment accident report form. The 

form indicated that appellant was delivering mail on September 30, 2019 when a customer used a 

racial epithet and told him “comeback here or I am going to put a bullet on you.” Appellant 

returned to the office and asked to see his physician for a panic attack.

In a development letter dated October 22, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development 

letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional 

information regarding the claimed employment incident, including comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of his allegations and explaining areas of 

disagreement. It further requested the submission of any documents that corroborated, refuted, or 

provided insight into the allegations.3 OWCP advised the employing establishment that, under 20 

C.F.R. § 10.117(b), it could accept appellant’s allegations as factual if it did not fully reply. It

afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

In an undated response, M.P., a manager at the employing establishment, related that an 

employing establishment scanner had verified that appellant was at the claimed location at the time 

of the alleged incident. He advised that inspectors with the employing establishment had gone to 

the address and spoken with the customer, but that the customer had denied the allegations. M.P. 

related, “We can only confirm that [appellant] returned to this office with signs of being stressed 

out and asking to see a doctor since he was having an anxiety attack.”

By decision dated November 22, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. 

It found that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the September 30, 2019 

employment incident occurred as alleged.

On December 3, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

Thereafter, OWCP received a state workers’ compensation form dated September 30, 2019 

signed by Dr. Lien Quoc Tran, an osteopath. Dr. Tran obtained a history of appellant experiencing 

 

3 The development letter to the employing establishment specifically requested that it state whether they concurred 

with appellant’s allegations and, if there were points of disagreement, fully explain and provide supportive evidence. 

It further requested that they identify any agency employees that had additional information on any of appellant’s 

allegations and to provide witness statements by such employees. 
3

anxiety, dizziness, and work stress after a customer used a racial epitaph and threatened to put a 

bullet in him. He noted that appellant had reported the incident to his supervisor. Dr. Tran 

diagnosed stress and found that he could perform his usual employment.

A telephonic hearing was held on April 6, 2020. Appellant related that he had approached 

a garage slot to insert mail when a customer gestured for the mail with his hand. He told him “no, 

sorry” and put the mail in the slot. Appellant continued to deliver mail, but when he was on the 

other side of the street the customer told him that if he came back he would “put a bullet in” him. 

He had a panic attack. When he got back to his vehicle, appellant called his manager to report the 

incident. He sought medical treatment on the date of the incident. Appellant provided the name 

of the street where the customer lived, which differed somewhat from the name on the claim form. 

He indicated that the form might have contained a typographical error. Appellant advised that he 

had not filed a police report.

In a statement dated April 19, 2020, appellant described his emotional and stress-related 

physical problems subsequent to the September 30, 2019 incident. He related that the employing 

establishment had not provided him with the investigative report even though he had submitted a 

written request. Appellant provided the address where the incident occurred. He noted that he 

had immediately informed his supervisor of the incident and believed that the customer had 

followed him back to the office in a truck.

By decision dated June 15, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the 

November 22, 2019 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4has 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 of FECA,5that 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.6 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.7

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 

 

4 Supra note 1.

5

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April 26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

6

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

7 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014);

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
4

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.8

OWCP’s procedures provide: 

“An employee who claims to have had an emotional reaction to conditions of 

employment must identify those conditions. The [claims examiner] must carefully 

develop and analyze the identified employment incidents to determine whether or 

not they in fact occurred and if they occurred whether they constitute factors of the 

employment. When an incident or incidents are the alleged cause of disability, the 

[claims examiner] must obtain from the claimant, agency personnel and others, 

such as witnesses to the incident, a statement relating in detail exactly what was 

[stated] and done. If any of the statements are vague or lacking detail, the 

responsible person should be requested to submit a supplemental statement 

clarifying the meaning or correcting the omission.”

9

 

OWCP’s regulations provide that an employer who has reason to disagree with an aspect 

of the claimant’s allegation should submit a statement that specifically describes the factual 

argument with which it disagrees and provide evidence or argument to support that position.10 Its 

regulations further provide in certain types of claims, such as a stress claim, a statement from the 

employer is imperative to properly develop and adjudicate the claim.11

ANALYSIS

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

By development letter dated October 22, 2019, OWCP specifically requested that the 

employing establishment state whether they concurred with appellant’s allegations and, if there 

were points of disagreement, fully explain and provide supportive evidence. It also requested that 

they identify any agency employees that had additional information on any of appellant’s 

allegations and to provide witness statements by such employees. OWCP further requested the 

submission of any documents that corroborated, refuted, or provided insight into the allegations. 

It advised the employing establishment that, under 20 C.F.R. § 10.117(b), it could accept 

appellant’s allegations as factual if it did not fully reply. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to

respond.

 

8 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).

9 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.17(j) (July 1997). See

also S.L., Docket No. 17-1780 (issued March 14, 2018).

10 20 C.F.R. § 10.117(a); G.K., Docket No. 20-0508 (issued December 11, 2020).

11 Supra note 9 at Chapter 2.800.7(a)(2) (June 2011).
5

In an undated response, a manager at the employing establishment, M.P., advised that a 

scanner verified that appellant was at the identified location at the time of the claimed incident. 

He indicated that inspectors had spoken to the customer at the alleged location of the incident, but

the customer had denied the allegations. M.P. confirmed that appellant had returned to the office 

on that date showing signs of stress and alleging that he needed to see a physician for anxiety. 

The Board finds, however, that the employing establishment did not adequately respond to 

OWCP’s October 22, 2019 development letter.12 The employing establishment did not provide a 

detailed statement indicating whether it concurred with appellant’s allegations or any documents 

that supported, refuted, or provided insight into appellant’s allegations. As well, the record 

supports that an investigation was conducted as investigators with the employing establishment 

spoke with the customer at the address where the alleged incident occurred; however, the 

investigative report is not found in the case record. 

Although it is a claimant’s burden of proof to establish his or her claim, OWCP is not a 

disinterested arbiter but, rather, shares responsibility in the development of the evidence, 

particularly when such evidence is of the character normally obtained from the employing 

establishment.13 

The case will therefore be remanded to OWCP for further development of the evidence. 

OWCP shall request that the employing establishment provide a detailed statement and submit all 

evidence relevant to the identified incident in its possession, including any report of investigation 

regarding the September 30, 2019 incident. Following this and any further development as 

deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

 

12 G.I., Docket No. 19-0942 (issued February 4, 2020).

13 R.A., Docket No. 17-1030 (issued April 16, 2018); K.W., Docket No. 15-1535 (issued September 23, 2016).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 15, 2020 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: August 27, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board