United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

MEDICAL COMMAND, RAYMOND W. BLISS 

ARMY HEALTH CENTER, Fort Huachuca, AZ, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1797

Issued: September 22, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On September 24, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 27, 2018 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

docketed the appeal as No. 18-1797.

On October 10, 2017 appellant, a then 35-year-old pharmacy technician, filed a notice of 

traumatic injury (Form CA-1) alleging that she developed a psychological injury to her brain on 

September 21, 2017 due to a hostile work environment.1 In a narrative statement dated October 8, 

2017, she indicated that, on September 21, 2017, while training at Window 5 at 11:15 a.m., she 

experienced a psychological and emotional injury to her psyche due to a hostile work environment 

and was taken off work initially for seven days. Appellant returned to work on September 29, 

2017, hoping things would be better in the workplace. She related that she had reported this 

workplace environment to several persons in management, yet no one stopped the “mob bullying.” 

 

1 By letter dated February 7, 2018, OWCP informed appellant that it had created duplicate claim files for the same 

injury, OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx809 xxxxxx832. It had, therefore, deleted File No. xxxxxx809 and moved the 

documents from that claim into the current claim, File No. xxxxxx832. 
2

By decision dated December 11, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

factual evidence of record was insufficient to establish fact of injury as appellant had only provided 

vague and general information regarding her claim without supporting evidence or specific 

examples of a hostile work environment. 

On January 10, 2018 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

Appellant submitted a September 25, 2017 memorandum from the employing 

establishment which documented that on September 22, 2017 appellant reported that “not one but 

two of her coworkers made comments referencing ‘Uncle Tom’ and that she felt the comments 

were inappropriate and offensive.” The employing establishment noted that she had reported the 

comments to her supervisor, M.R. and that M.R. addressed the behavior with her staff and also 

offered appellant reasonable accommodations. It also indicated that appellant alleged that she was 

not being properly trained by the staff. The employing establishment noted that she did not wish 

to file any form of complaint at that time.

Appellant subsequently filed a formal complaint of discrimination and submitted 

documentation related to her Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) claim dated November 29 

and December 28, 2017.

Following completion of a preliminary review, by decision dated April 10, 2018, an OWCP 

hearing representative found that the case was not in posture for a hearing and vacated the prior 

decision. She found that due to appellant’s detailed list of events on specific dates that additional 

information was required from the employing establishment to determine whether the alleged 

employment factors of racial slurs, training, and a hostile work environment actually 

existed/occurred, and “to distinguish between those workplace activities and circumstances which 

are factors of employment and those which are outside the scope of employment for purposes of 

compensation.” The hearing representative remanded the case for further development and a 

de novo decision on the merits.

By decision dated July 27, 2018, OWCP found that appellant had not established a 

compensable factor of employment and denied the claim because the evidence of record was 

insufficient to establish an injury in the performance of duty. 

The Board notes, however, that OWCP failed to further develop the case record in 

accordance with the April 10, 2018 hearing representative’s decision. OWCP’s hearing 

representative remanded the case for the specific purpose of obtaining information from the 

employing establishment regarding the alleged employment factors. There was no such attempt 

to obtain information. OWCP issued its July 27, 2018 decision without complying with the 

specific directive of the hearing representative. The Board therefore finds, that for full and fair 

adjudication, the case must be remanded to OWCP for further development of the claim as 

instructed by the hearing representative in her April 10, 2018 decision. Following this and other 

such further development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 27, 2018 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this order of the Board.

Issued: September 22, 2020

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