United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Trenton, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0718

Issued: October 18, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 19, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 30, 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 the case.

ISSUE

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

condition was causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 7, 2017 appellant, then a 48-year-old carrier technician, filed a traumatic 

injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on that date he developed anxiety when his postal truck 

was vandalized an hour after he was approached by two men attempting to get an Express Mail 

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

package without identification. He believed that two men had targeted him for not delivering the 

package. Appellant stopped work on December 7, 2017. 

In a development letter dated December 22, 2017, OWCP requested that appellant provide 

additional evidence in support of his claim for FECA benefits. It advised him of the type of 

medical and factual evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for his completion. By separate 

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

from a knowledgeable supervisor on the accuracy of all statements provided by the employee, 

whether there were aspects of the employee’s job that could be perceived as stressful, and what 

accommodations if any were made by the employing establishment to reduce stress. It afforded 

both parties 30 days to provide the requested information.

OWCP subsequently received a December 7, 2017 statement from J.G., a letter carrier,

who indicated that on December 7, 2017 he was carrying and delivering city route 1852 when a 

grey minivan stopped and a passenger asked him if he had seen a large postal truck in the area. 

The passenger reported looking for a package, but he did not provide an address or describe the 

letter carrier who was driving the truck. 

The record contains an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) dated 

December 14, 2017 from the employing establishment, which related that appellant was authorized 

to receive treatment for anxiety and fear. In the Form CA-20 report and Part B of an authorization 

for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16), an attending physician’s report dated 

December 7, 2017, Victor J. Nitti, Jr., Ph.D. a psychologist, noted that appellant experienced an 

incident on the job which caused an acute anxiety disorder. He checked a box marked “yes”

indicating that appellant’s diagnosis caused or aggravated by the employment activity described.

On December 18, 2017 the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim and 

submitted a statement from supervisor, S.B. S.B. indicated that on December 7, 2017 he called 

her from his mail route to inform her that he was returning to the office with an Express Mail box 

that he had attempted to deliver. Appellant indicated that the customer refused the package. He

reported that prior to delivery two men approached him attempting to obtain the package without 

identification. S.B. noted that appellant immediately returned the package to the office because 

he did not feel comfortable driving around with the package in his truck. She indicated that at 

12:40 p.m. he contacted the office to report that his postal vehicle had been vandalized and that he

had seen a gentleman running from the passenger side of the postal vehicle with some packages. 

When S.B. arrived at the scene appellant was giving a statement to a police officer. Appellant

described the perpetrator and stated that the man that vandalized the vehicle was not the same man 

who approached him earlier in the day. S.B. noted that appellant laughed and spoke with police 

officers for nearly two hours. She asserted that his statement was suspicious and he was using the 

incident to be moved to another office. 

In a report dated December 20, 2017, Dr. Nitti indicated that appellant was involved in an 

incident on December 7, 2017 while delivering mail. He related that appellant recounted the 

history of the alleged employment incident. Dr. Nitti noted symptoms of rumination, worry, 

autonomic hyperarousal, loss of appetite and energy, insomnia, irritability, depressed mood, fearof-job loss, and hypervigilance. The mental status examination revealed that appellant was alert 

and oriented to time, place, and person, he was neatly groomed, his speech was rapid, but fluent, 
3

his thinking followed to logical conclusion, he was emotionally distressed, and his mood was 

anxious. Dr. Nitti diagnosed acute stress disorder. In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated

December 20, 2017, he diagnosed acute stress reaction and opined that appellant could not resume 

work. 

In a statement dated December 31, 2017, appellant reiterated the facts of the incident on 

December 7, 2017. He indicated that there were no witnesses to the incident as he worked alone 

all day. Appellant reported that, for several days a week after the incident he experienced a high 

heart rate, low grade headache, he was jittery, he had insomnia, loss of appetite, and routinely had 

an upset stomach. He asserted that he felt he was being targeted because his fellow carrier was 

approached by an individual inquiring about a postal vehicle in the area. Appellant indicated that 

he did not have stress outside of his employment. He reported his hobbies included fixing up his 

pickup truck and working as a licensed realtor. Appellant noted receiving counseling as a young 

child when his mother remarried and most recently attending couples counseling with his wife. 

He indicated that he has never taken medication or been hospitalized for an emotional condition. 

On January 4, 2018 Dr. Nitti indicated that appellant was seen for a work-related injury on 

or about December 7, 2017 and has been on psychiatric leave beginning December 7, 2017. 

In response to OWCP’s development letter, the employing establishment submitted an email statement from B.S. dated January 10, 2018. B.S. asserted that appellant’s statements were 

false as there was no proof that the individuals who broke into his vehicle were the same 

individuals who asked him for the package earlier that day. She confirmed that a window of his

vehicle was broken and two people were seen running away from the vehicle. B.S. noted that 

employees were expected to deliver mail within a certain timeframe to meet customer 

expectations. She indicated that delivering mail was a stress-free job and appellant’s stress may 

be attributed to his other job as a real estate agent. B.S. indicated that no accommodations were 

made. She advised that appellant had not been to work since the incident. B.S. indicated that he

was generally able to perform his duties within the reasonable expectations of management.2

By decision dated May 16, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

finding that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish a compensable factor of 

employment. 

On May 25, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration. In an undated statement he asserted 

that his physician, Dr. Nitti diagnosed acute stress disorder as a result of delivering mail on 

December 7, 2017. He indicated that there were no witnesses to the incident and the police report 

supported the vehicle break-in. Appellant noted relocating to another office.

By decision dated January 30, 2019, OWCP modified the May 16, 2018 decision, finding

that appellant had established that his postal vehicle was broken into and that packages were stolen 

from the vehicle while he was in the performance of duty, which constituted compensable factors

of employment. However, the claim remained denied because the medical evidence of record was 

 

2 A December 12, 2017 case management letter noted appellant’s mental health treatment and noted that the 

treatment would be long term. 
4

insufficient to establish causal relationship between the accepted employment factors and his 

medical condition.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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 of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

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

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

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

emotional or psychiatric disorder; (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that the 

identified compensable employment factors are causally related to the 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. In the case of Lillian Cutler,

8

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.9 

When an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying out his or her employment duties, and 

the medical evidence establishes that the disability resulted from an emotional reaction to such 

situation, the disability is generally regarded as due to an injury arising out of and in the course of 

employment. This is true when the employee’s disability results from his or her emotional reaction 

to a special assignment or other requirement imposed by the employing establishment or by the 

nature of the work.

10

 

3

Supra note 1.

4

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988). 

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

7 O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004).

8

28 ECAB 125 (1976). 

9

See Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999). 

10 Lillian Cutler, supranote 8.
5

Causal relationship is a medical question that generally requires rationalized medical 

opinion evidence to resolve the issue.11 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal 

relationship between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be 

based on a complete factual and medical background.12 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must 

be expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by 

medical rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and 

appellant’s specific employment factor(s).13

ANALYSIS

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

was causally related to the accepted compensable factors of his federal employment related to the 

December 7, 2017 employment incident. 

In a report dated December 20, 2017, Dr. Nitti indicated that appellant was involved in an 

incident on December 7, 2017 while delivering mail. Appellant reported delivering mail on foot 

and discovered the passenger window of the mail truck was smashed and two males were taking 

packages out of his truck. He dialed 911 and the police arrived and took an incident report. 

Dr. Nitti noted symptoms of rumination, worry, autonomic hyperarousal, loss of appetite and 

energy, insomnia, irritability, depressed mood, fear-of-job loss, and hypervigilance. The mental 

status examination revealed that appellant was alert and oriented to time, place, and person, he was 

neatly groomed, his speech was rapid, but fluent, his thinking followed to logical conclusion, he 

was emotionally distressed, and his mood was anxious. Dr. Nitti diagnosed acute stress disorder. 

Also, in a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated December 20, 2017, he noted clinical findings 

and diagnosed acute stress reaction. Dr. Nitti advised that appellant could not resume work. 

However, in these reports, he offered no opinion as to a causal relationship between the accepted 

December 7, 2017 compensable factors and his diagnosed condition. The Board has held that 

medical evidence that does not offer an opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is 

of no probative value on the issue of causal relationship.14 These reports, therefore, are insufficient 

to establish appellant’s claim.

On January 4, 2018 Dr. Nitti noted that appellant was seen for a work-related injury on or 

about December 7, 2017 and was on psychiatric leave beginning December 7, 2017. In an undated 

report from him, submitted in support of reconsideration, he diagnosed acute stress disorder related

to delivering mail on December 7, 2017. The Board finds that, although Dr. Nitti supported causal 

relationship, he did not provide medical rationale explaining the basis of his conclusory opinion

regarding causal relationship between appellant’s acute stress reaction and the accepted 

 

11 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

12 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

13 Id.

14 See L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K.,Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).
6

December 7, 2017 compensable factors.

15

 Therefore, these reports are insufficient to meet 

appellant’s burden of proof. 

As appellant failed to submit evidence establishing causal relationship, the Board finds that 

he has not met his burden of proof.

On appeal appellant disagrees with OWCP’s decision denying his claim for compensation. 

As noted above, part of his burden of proof includes the submission of rationalized medical opinion 

evidence, supporting a causal relationship between the employment incident and the diagnosed 

condition. The record contains no medical evidence explaining how and why appellant’s anxiety

was employment related, and therefore he has not met his burden of proof.

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 10.607.16

CONCLUSION

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

was causally related to the accepted December 7, 2017 compensable factors. 

 

15 See T.M., Docket No. 08-0975 (issued February 6, 2009) (a medical report is of limited probative value on the 

issue of causal relationship if it contains a conclusion regarding causal relationship which is unsupported by medical 

rationale).

16 The record contains a Form CA-16 signed by the employing establishment official on December 14, 2017 for 

treatment with Dr. Nitti. When the employing establishment properly executes a Form CA-16 which authorizes 

medical treatment as a result of an employee’s claim for an employment-related injury, the CA-16 form creates a 

contractual obligation, which does not involve the employee directly, to pay for the cost of the examination or 

treatment regardless of the action taken on the claim. The period for which treatment is authorized by a Form CA-16 

is limited to 60 days from the date of issuance, unless terminated earlier by OWCP. See 20 C.F.R. § 10.300(c); N.M.,

Docket No. 17-1655 (issued January 24, 2018); Tracy P. Spillane, 54 ECAB 608 (2003). The record is silent as to 

whether OWCP paid for the cost of appellant’s examination or treatment for the period noted on the form.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 30, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 18, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board