United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.R., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 

Jacksonville, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0954

Issued: December 8, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Victor A. Walker, for the appellant1

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 March 25, 2020 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from a

January 9, 2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).2 

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 The Board notes that following the January 9, 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

Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 

501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 22, 2017 appellant, then a 54-year-old administrative officer, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed emotional conditions,

including anxiety, due to factors of her federal employment. She noted that she first became aware 

of her condition on November 23, 2015 and realized its relation to her federal employment on 

October 5, 2016. Appellant did not stop work. On the reverse side of the claim form, the 

employing establishment controverted the claim, asserting that she had been involved in numerous 

nonwork-related motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) and was working full time with reasonable 

accommodations. 

Appellant submitted documentation indicating that she was promoted from a GS-9 

administrative officer to a GS-11 administrative officer on December 18, 2012. On October 29, 

2015 she received an exemplary performance appraisal. 

In an undated statement received on September 22, 2017, appellant alleged that B.S., a 

GS-12 management analyst, had retired on November 20, 2015 and that appellant was then 

assigned to perform the additional workload and duties of the GS-12 management analyst position. 

She asserted that the additional workload and responsibilities prevented her from successfully 

performing the duties associated with her GS-11 position and caused her to have an emotional 

reaction including anxiety and panic attacks. Appellant noted that the employing establishment 

did not fill the vacant GS-12 management analyst position. She alleged that she became

overwhelmed and was overworked as of November 23, 2015. Appellant requested leave on 

August 1, 2016 and continued in a temporary disability status until she returned to part-time work 

on November 7, 2016 with accommodations. She requested reassignment to a position that she 

could perform, but was not allowed to perform any aspect of her regular position and was instead 

assigned training courses, filing duties, spreadsheet creation duties, and storing duties.

On November 30, 2016 appellant received a minimally successful performance appraisal, 

which noted that she needed improvement on the budget and accounting element of her 

performance standards with regard to invoice timeliness, contract quality, and accuracy. Her 

supervisor noted that eight of nine purchase orders were processed erroneously, funds for the prior 

year were erroneously entered, and budget/accounting spreadsheets had to be corrected.

OWCP received a copy of appellant’s GS-11 position description, which included 

providing administrative and project management support to the regional director, as well as

personnel, budget, and property management support. Appellant was to serve as back-up to the 

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
3

regional management analyst and assume those duties and responsibilities in his or her absence as 

well as to serve as the primary liaison to the regional personnel office for all matters pertaining to 

human resources. Her position involved both financial and human resources aspects, as she was 

responsible for analyzing, administering, and ensuring accountability for administrative and 

management functions including staffing and recruitment, financial and personnel management, 

budget analysis, employee and labor relations, procurement, property and space management, 

office travel and training, contract administration, employee benefits, staffing, safety and health, 

workers’ compensation, and reports management. Appellant was to participate in all phases of the 

program budget, including formulations, execution, auditing, and projections, and advise on the 

requirements for the preparation, documentation, and submission of budget requests, allocation of 

funds, check obligations and expenditures and provide guidance concerning the legal and 

regulatory aspect of acquisition and use of funds. She was required to ensure compliance with 

time and attendance requirements and records, process requests for travel authorization, 

government credit cards, and travel vouchers. Appellant was required to serve as the liaison on all 

announcements, selections, and personnel actions related to staffing and hiring. Her duties 

included administering a property management program for nonexpendable equipment; preparing 

purchase orders for conventional office equipment, supplies, and materials; and serving as district 

contact for questions about records management and the retention and disposal of records. 

Appellant worked under the general direction of the Regional Director.

In an August 22, 2017 note, Dr. Shariq Refai, a psychiatrist, diagnosed generalized anxiety 

disorder and depression. He related that, when a coworker retired in November 2015, appellant 

could notkeep up with her work, that she had an increased workload, and that she developed panic 

attacks, anxiety, and depression.

In a September 27, 2017 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of additional factual and medical evidence needed and 

provided a questionnaire for her completion. By separate letter of even date, OWCP also requested 

additional information from the employing establishment. It afforded both parties 30 days to 

respond.

In an October 26, 2017 response to the development questionnaire, appellant asserted that 

she became responsible for the processing of miscellaneous obligations requests, preparing Federal 

Records Center (FRC) shipments, FECA division property destruction, FECA division inventory, 

processing of personnel action requests (PARs) for bonus recognition, promotions, new hires and 

separations as well as processing of job vacancy announcements, travel assistance, procurement 

requests, claimant call-in line, and requests from the National Office, after the GS-12 management 

analyst retired in November 2015. She further asserted that this increase in her duties reached an 

unmanageable level. Appellant alleged that she was tasked to assume three management analyst 

contracts and respond to e-mail requests from all four programs. 

On October 26, 2017 appellant provided a list of bills and asserted that payment of 

telephone bills and printing for the region’s four programs were part of the GS-12 management 

analyst duties. She also provided a list of job announcements and PARs for promotions, 

separations, and new hires. Appellant provided a series of e-mails regarding travel, purchase 

orders, procurement, FRC boxes, job announcements, the call line, excess personal property 

destruction, and monthly operating reports.
4

Dr. Gregory Miller, an osteopath and a Board-certified family practitioner, completed a 

series of notes dated October 5 through December 19, 2016, wherein he diagnosed post-traumatic 

brain syndrome, adjustment disorder with work problems, and generalized anxiety disorder. He 

reported that appellant was in an MVA in March 2015, resulting in C5-6 disc herniation and a 

concussion. Appellant alleged that the MVA affected her memory and her ability to concentrate. 

Dr. Miller noted that she had four MVAs during the period 2002 to 2004,resulting in back injuries.

In November 3, 2016 and February 20, 2017 notes, Dr. Mark K. Emas, a Board-certified 

neurologist, reported that appellant had sustained injuries from two MVAs since March 2015. He 

diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic concussive syndrome with fatigue and 

headaches, adjustment disorder with anxiety, somatic symptom disorder and multiple physical 

injuries including a concussion and structural damage to her cervical and lumbosacral areas of her 

spine resulting in nerve damage to her arms and legs.

In a December 19, 2016 letter, appellant requested a reasonable accommodation, noting

that she was in an MVA on March 13, 2015 and sustained a traumatic brain injury/concussion with 

C5 and C6 injuries. She was involved in an additional MVA on June 1, 2016 and sustained 

additional injuries. Appellant provided a list of requested accommodations, including transfer to 

a vacant position, limited work duties, use of a digital recorder, removal of the claimant call-line

duties, and additional breaks. She also requested a reduction in program responsibility as the 

GS-12 management analyst position had not been filled and she had beenrequired to fulfill several 

of the GS-12 management analyst responsibilities as well as her own job duties. On February 23, 

2017 appellant again requested transfer to another federal agency.

On April 14, 2017 the employing establishment denied appellant’s request for a reasonable 

accommodation. In an August 4, 2017 memoranda, it found that it had acted in good faith by 

engaging in the interactive process and twice attempted to find a vacant position for her. The 

employing establishment finalized the April 14, 2017 decision on August 4, 2017, and provided 

appellant with appeal rights to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

In August 9, 10, and 14, 2017 reports, Dr. Walter E. Afield, a Board-certified psychiatrist, 

diagnosed major depression, generalized anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 

cognitive problems with neurogenic work findings and memory either from depression or brain 

dysfunction.

On September 26, 2017 the employing establishment proposed to remove appellant from 

her GS-11 administrative officer position, within 30 days. On October 25, 2017 it removed her

from her position, effective October 28, 2017.

On October 30, 2017 appellant’s supervisor, M.F., responded to OWCP’s development 

letter and asserted that she was performing her duties, not those of another position. She noted

that the GS-12 management analyst position was a supervisory position. M.F. asserted that some 

of the administrative duties of the management analyst position were reassigned to another 

management analyst and other administrative staff, while the supervisory duties were abolished. 

She reported that appellant did not perform supervisory duties and was not the only administrative 

officer providing support to the region, as there were four other administrative employees and 

three other purchase credit cards. M.F. also reported that she had back-up support with the 
5

claimant call-line. She asserted that appellant continued to complain about work that had always 

been in her position description and performance standards as well as duties that she had performed 

in the past. M.F. noted that the management analyst was required to perform some of appellant’s 

duties prior to her retirement due to appellant’s post-concussion syndrome and residuals from her 

MVAs.

By decision dated November 3, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim, finding that she failed to substantiate a compensable factor of employment. It noted that 

she had not submitted factual evidence substantiating that she was overworked. 

On November 2, 2018 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration. 

She provided an additional narrative statement with supporting e-mails and specifically alleged 

the additional duties she was assigned after the retirement of the GS-12 management analyst. 

Appellant asserted that she was required to provide quarterly safety reports for the Black Lung, 

Longshore, and FECA programs on April 6, 2016. She alleged that she previously shared 

responsibility with B.S. for the FECA program only and that Black Lung and Longshore programs 

were the sole responsibility of B.S. Appellant listed the duties that were reassigned to her from 

the GS-12 position including: completing the FECA program property inventory in July 2016;

destroyingthe FECA program’s equipment;performing budgetingforecasts,reviews, and updates;

processing job announcements; processing student extensions for the Black Lung program;

documenting the staffing patterns for FECA; investigating and processing outstanding chargebacks; and preparing spreadsheets of bills for all four programs. She contended that she was not 

professionally trained in budget forecasting. Appellant asserted that she was expected to be the 

sole administrator for the claimant-line after the retirement of the GS-12 management analyst. She

alleged that prior to the retirement of the GS-12 management analyst, she did not attend meetings 

with M.F., that she did not have training to excess property, that she was not solely responsible for 

preparing purchase orders supplied for three programs, and that she was not trained to prepare 

drafts for job announcements for all three programs.

In a November 7, 2017 report, Dr. Afield reviewed appellant’s position description. On 

December 6, 2017 he disagreed with the November 3, 2017 decision. In January 4 through

August 17, 2018 treatment notes, Dr. Afield repeated his diagnoses of major depressive disorder, 

generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD and cognitive problems with neurogenic word finding and 

memory problems.

In a November 20, 2018 statement, M.F. asserted that appellant had processed personnel

actions since 2013. She further opined that all the duties that she had alleged were outside of her 

position were included in her position description and performance plan. M.F. noted that some of 

the duties previously performed by the GS-12 management analyst were assigned to another 

management analyst, other administrative staff, or to herself. She noted that it was appellant’s 

responsibility to conduct the annual inventory, but that she had always had help.

By decision dated January 9, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its prior decision.
6

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim,5including 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 

claims compensation is causally related to that employment injury.6 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.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 

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

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.9 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.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established overwork as a compensable factor of her 

federal employment. 

4

Id.

5 E.G., Docket No. 20-1029 (issued March 18, 2022); S.S., Docket No. 19-1021 (issued April21, 2021); O.G.,

Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August7, 2019); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); JosephM. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968).

6

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

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.115; M.K.,Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); MichaelE. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

8

See P.B.,Docket No. 19-1252 (issued March 22, 2021); S.K.,Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C.,

Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014); DebbieJ. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 

ECAB 730 (1990).

9

See S.O., Docket No. 20-1271 (issued March 9, 2021); 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).

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

id.
7

Appellant has attributed her emotional condition to Cutler11 factors. She alleged that her 

colleague, B.S., a GS-12 management analyst, retired and that, rather than filling the management 

analyst position, the employing establishment redistributed those duties to her. Appellant’s duties 

that were reassigned to her from the GS-12 position included: preparing FRC shipments; 

processing PARs; providing travel assistance; processing procurement requests; managing the 

claimant call-in line; completing the FECA program property inventory in July 2016; performing 

budgeting forecasts, reviews, and updates; processing job announcements; documenting the 

staffing patterns for FECA; investigating and processing outstanding charge-backs; and preparing 

spreadsheets of bills for all four programs. She contended that she was not professionally trained 

in budget forecasting. Appellant asserted that she was expected to be the sole administrator for 

the claimant-line after the retirement of the GS-12 management analyst. She alleged that prior to 

the retirement of the GS-12 management analyst, she did not attend meetings with M.F., she did 

not have training to excess property, she was not solely responsible for preparing purchase orders, 

and she was not trained to prepare drafts for job announcements. Appellant further asserted that 

this increase in her duties reached an unmanageable level and, as a result, she was overworked and 

unable to perform her regularly-assigned duties. The Board has held that overwork may constitute

a compensable factor of employment.12 In light of appellant’s description of her increased duties 

and responsibilities, the Board finds that she has established a compensable employment factor 

with respect to her allegation of overwork.13

As appellant has established overwork as a compensable factor of employment, the case 

must be remanded for an evaluation of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal 

relationship.14 Accordingly, the Board will set aside OWCP’s January 9, 2020 decision and 

remand the case for further development of the evidence with regard to whether appellant has 

established an emotional condition causally related to the accepted compensable employment 

factor of overwork.15 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, 

OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has established overwork as a compensable factor of her 

federal employment. The Board further finds that this case is not in posture for decision as to 

whether appellant sustained an emotional condition causally related to the accepted compensable 

employment factor of overwork. 

11 Supra note 9.

12 S.S., Docket No. 19-1021 (issued April21, 2021); I.P., Docket No. 17-1178 (issued June 12, 2018); WilliamH. 

Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

13 See L.Y., Docket No. 20-1108 (issued November 24, 2021).

14 L.Y., id.; S.S., Docket No. 21-0814 (issued July 14, 2021); M.D., Docket No. 15-1796 (issued September 7, 2016).

15 Id.
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 9, 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: December 8, 2022

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