United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN 

SERVICES, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF 

HEALTH, Gaithersburg, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0420

Issued: August 26, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 28, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 19, 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.

ISSUE

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

condition in the performance of duty.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.2 The facts and circumstances as set forth 

in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as 

follows.

On November 29, 2018 appellant, then a 51-year-old contract specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a stress-related condition due 

to learning that, on or around July 15, 2013, he had been involuntarily reassigned to another 

position. He indicated that he first became aware of his condition and of its relationship to his 

federal employment on July 15, 2013. Appellant maintained that his issues were “continuous.”

In a November 11, 2018 statement, appellant asserted that on approximately July 15, 2013 

he learned that management had reassigned him from a position as a management analyst to a 

position as a contract specialist and had transferred him to a work location.3 He maintained that 

he had immediately experienced extreme stress and that “such issues continue to this very day.” 

Appellant advised that he had missed work intermittently from July 18, 2013 through 

November 15, 2015 due to stress, which was related to his involuntary reassignment.

In a development letter dated January 2, 2019, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim, noting that it did not appear that his claim was timely filed. It advised 

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

completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of 

appellant’s allegations. 

In a January 24, 2019 response, appellant again related that he had experienced stress after 

learning on July 15, 2013 of his involuntary reassignment. He related, “I was written out of work 

by a medical doctor from July 18 through August 31, 2013 due to the aforementioned issues 

surrounding my forcible reassignment and the stress[-]related issues I was and [am] currently 

experiencing.” Appellant advised that his stress-related issues continued.4 He noted that he had 

been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, benign hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease 

(GERD)/acid reflux, allergic rhinitis, erythrocytosis, insomnia, migraines/vascular headache, and 

obstructive sleep apnea.

By decision dated February 27, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease 

claim. It found that as he had first become aware of the relationship between his condition and his 

federal employment on July 15, 2013, but did not file a claim until February 27, 2019, the claim 

was untimely under 5 U.S.C. § 8122(a).

 

2 Docket No. 19-1345 (issued January 28, 2020).

3 Appellant additionally contended that he had sustained physical injuries on various dates. OWCP adjudicated the 

issue of whether he had sustained an orthopedic condition under a separate OWCP file, File No.xxxxxx307. 

4 Appellant again described various physical injuries sustained from September 10, 2013 until July 20, 2018.
3

On March 11, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration. He asserted that he continued to 

experience stress related to his reassignment from his position as a management analyst to a 

position as a contract specialist.

By decision dated May 28, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of 

the merits of his claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 

Appellant appealed to the Board. By decision dated January 28, 2020, the Board set aside 

the February 27 and May 28, 2019 OWCP decisions.5It found that appellant’s claim was timely 

filed under section 8122(a) as he had attributed his condition to stress, continuing to the present 

day. The Board remanded the case for OWCP to adjudicate the merits of the emotional condition

claim.

In a development letter dated March 12, 2020, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of 

appellant’s allegations. It afforded the employing establishment 30 days to submit the requested 

information.

In a response dated March 12, 2020, the employing establishment advised that appellant’s 

supervisor from 2013 had retired from employment and the new supervisor “has no idea what took 

place.” 

By decision dated June 24, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim. It 

found that he had not established that reassignment to a contract specialist position from a 

management analyst position constituted a compensable employment factor. OWCP concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an emotional condition “that arose 

during the course of employment and within the scope of compensable work factors as defined by 

the FECA.”

On July 6, 2020 appellant requested a review of the written record by a representative of

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

By decision dated October 19, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the June 24, 

2020 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA6has the burden of proof to establish the

essential elements of his or her claim,7including that he or she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, and that any specific condition or disability from work for which he or she 

 

5 Supra note 2.

6 Supra note 1.

7 S.S., Docket No. 19-1021 (issued April 21, 2021); O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968).
4

claims compensation is causally related to that employment injury.

8

 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.9

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.10

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

somehow related to a claimant’s employment. There are situations where an injury or illness has 

some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the purview of 

workers’ compensation. 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.11 However, disability is not compensable when it results from factors such as an 

employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force, or frustration from not being permitted to work in a 

particular environment, or to hold a particular position.12

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.13 Where, however, the 

evidence demonstrates that the employing establishment either erred or acted abusively in 

discharging its administrative or personnel responsibilities, such action will be considered a 

compensable employment factor.14 

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 factors of employment and may 

 

8 S.S., id.; G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

9 20 C.F.R. § 10.115; R.S., Docket No. 20-1307 (issued June 29, 2012); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 

2019); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

10 See S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

11 A.C., Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018); Pamela D. Casey, 57 ECAB 260, 263 (2005); Lillian 

Cutler, 28 ECAB 125, 129 (1976).

12 Lillian Cutler, id.

13 See R.M., Docket No. 19-1088 (issued November 17, 2020); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d 

on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

14 M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019).
5

not be considered.15 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, OWCP should then 

determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor. When the matter asserted is a 

compensable factor of employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter 

asserted, OWCP must base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.16

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a stress-related

condition in the performance of duty.

Appellant has not attributed his condition to the performance of his regularly or specially 

assigned duties under Cutler.

17

 Instead, he maintained that he experienced stress due to 

administrative actions by the employing establishment in transferring him in July 2013 to a 

different position at a new location. In Thomas D. McEuen,

18 the Board held that an employee’s 

emotional reaction to administrative actions or personnel matters taken by the employing 

establishment is not covered under FECA as such matters pertain to procedures and requirements 

of the employer and do not bear a direct relation to the work required of the employee. However, 

the Board has also held that, where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the 

employing establishment in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, such action will be 

considered a compensable employment factor.19 

Appellant asserted that he experienced stress after being involuntarily reassigned in 

July 2013 from a position as a management analyst to a position as a contract specialist and 

transferred to a new work location. However, the Board has held that emotional conditions 

resulting from an involuntary transfer are not compensable.

20

 Appellant has not submitted any 

corroborating evidence to establish error or abuse by management in its administrative action of 

transferring him to a different position at a new location and, thus, has not established a 

compensable employment factor.21 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.

 

15 See R.B., Docket No. 19-0434 (issued November 22, 2019); O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019).

16 Id.

17 Supra note 7.

18 See Thomas D. McEuen, supra note 13.

19 M.B., Docket No. 20-1160 (issued April 2, 2021); William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

20 Andrew J. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170 (2001).

21 See D.R., Docket No. 16-0605 (issued October 17, 2016).
6

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a stress-related

condition in the performance of duty.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 19, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: August 26, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, 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