United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.R., Appellant

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

CHICAGO HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0930

Issued: June 5, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 3, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 15, 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 over 

the merits of this case.2

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that, following the March 15, 2018 decision, OWCP received additional evidence and appellant 

submitted additional evidence on appeal. However, the Boards 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has established that he sustained a heart attack due to stress

in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On January 9, 2018 appellant, then a 55-year-old claims specialist, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he suffered a heart attack on August 22, 2016 due to

work-related stress. He noted that he first became aware of the illness and its relationship to his

federal employment that day. Appellant related that his heart attack was confirmed by doctors, 

that he had heart catheterization surgery, and that his heart doctor opined that it was due to job 

stress. An employing establishment district manager noted that appellant stopped work on 

August 22, 2016, returned to work on September 26, 2017, and continued to work through 

December 20, 2017 when he stopped again and did not return.

By development letter dated January 25, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

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

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded him 30 days 

to submit the necessary evidence.

Appellant subsequently submitted a number of medical reports.

In an emergency room report dated August 22, 2016, Dr. Tyler Creighton Vaughn, Boardcertified in emergency medicine, noted that appellant complained of sudden onset of left-sided 

chest pain that occurred while he worked as a claims adjuster. He diagnosed unspecified chest 

pain and transferred appellant for hospital admission. While hospitalized, appellant had an 

abnormal electrocardiogram. He underwent cardiac catheterization and stent placement and was 

discharged on August 24, 2016. Appellant was seen in a follow up by nurse practitioners and 

physician assistants. He was again seen in an emergency room on November 7, 2017. At that 

time, Dr. Don J. Walbridge, Board-certified in emergency medicine, reported seeing appellant that 

day for complaints of chest pain that began at about 12:30 p.m. while appellant was at work. He

diagnosed chest pain, unspecified type, suspicious for coronary ischemia and advised that 

appellant would be admitted for further testing. A cardiac stress test was negative. Appellant was 

discharged on November 8, 2016 with a diagnosis of chest pain, unspecified type.

Appellant continued to be treated by nurse practitioners and physician assistants who 

provided reports dated August 26, 2016 through January 13, 2018.

On August 24, 2017 Dr. John Schonder, Board-certified in cardiovascular disease, saw 

appellant for a follow up of a myocardial infarction with percutaneous intervention. He diagnosed 

an August 2016 myocardial infarction and extreme work stress. In a report dated January 15, 2018,

Dr. Schonder noted seeing appellant for a follow up of chest pain.

By decision dated March 15, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish the claim. It noted that he had not responded to its 

January 25, 2018 letter requesting specific factual information regarding “the employment-related 
3

conditions ... which [he] believed contributed to [his] illness.” OWCP concluded, therefore, that 

the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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

following: (1) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused 

or contributed to the condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or she has an emotional

condition or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that 

the emotional condition is causally related to the identified compensable employment factors.3

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment. In the case of Lillian Cutler,

4

the Board explained 

that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a compensable 

emotional condition arising under FECA. There are situations where an injury or illness has some 

connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within coverage under FECA.5 

When disability results from an emotional reaction to regular or specially assigned work duties or 

a requirement imposed by the employment, the disability is deemed compensable.6

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

condition claim.7 The claim must be supported by probative and reliable evidence.

8

 Personal 

perceptions alone are insufficient to establish an employment-related emotional condition, and 

disability is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reductionin-force, or frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment, or to hold a 

particular position.9

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.10 Where the evidence 

demonstrates that the employing establishment either erred or acted abusively in discharging its 

 

3 See R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February 14, 2020); B.W., Docket No. 19-0718 (issued October 18, 2019).

4 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

5 M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019); Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999).

6 R.B., supra note 3; Pamela D. Casey, 57 ECAB 160 (2005); Lillian Cutler, supra note 4.

7 See L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020).

8

Id.

9 M.A., supra note 5.

10 D.T., Docket No. 19-1270 (issued February 4, 2020).
4

administrative or personnel responsibilities, such action will be considered a compensable 

employment factor.11

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability, there must be 

evidence which establishes that the acts alleged or implicated by the employee did, in fact, occur.12 

Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.13 A claimant

must substantiate allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable evidence. 

Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not determinative of whether such 

harassment or discrimination occurred.14 Additionally, verbal altercations and difficult 

relationships with supervisors, 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.15 The claim must be supported 

by probative evidence.16 If a compensable factor of employment is substantiated, OWCP must 

base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence which has been submitted.17

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not established that he sustained a heart attack due to 

stress in the performance of duty, as alleged.

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim alleging that his heart attack was due to 

work-related stress. By development letter dated January 25, 2018, OWCP informed appellant 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish his claim and advised him of evidence 

needed. This was to include a detailed statement of employment factors that he believed 

contributed to his condition. While appellant submitted medical evidence he did not submit the 

requested statement detailing the employment factors that he believed caused his claimed stressrelated heart attack. A statement describing the particular employment factors that caused or 

contributed to the claimed condition is crucial to appellant’s claim.18 Appellant only alleged in 

general terms on the claim form that he had experienced stress at work and that this stress had 

caused or contributed to his heart attack on August 22, 2016. He did not describe any specific 

work factors or events related to his claimed stress at work. 

Because appellant has not provided a factual statement describing in detail the work factors 

that he alleged caused or contributed to his heart attack at work, the Board finds that he has not 

 

11 M.A., supra note 5.

12 R.B., supra note 3.

13 Id.

14 T.Y., Docket No. 19-0654 (issued November 5, 2019); Ronald K. Jablanski, 56 ECAB 616 (2005).

15 W.F., Docket No. 18-1526 (issued November 26, 2019).

16 L.S., supra note 7.

17 Id.

18 L.B., Docket No. 17-2023 (issued August 21, 2018).
5

met his burden of proof to establish a claim for compensation.19 As appellant has not established

the factual component of his claim, the Board need not address the medical evidence of record

with respect to causal relationship.

20

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 established that he sustained a heart attack due to 

stress in the performance of duty, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 15, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 5, 2020

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

19 See R.B., supra note 3. 

20 See S.S., Docket No. 18-0242 (issued June 11, 2018).