United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.A., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1715

Issued: May 24, 2019

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 11, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 14, 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

ISSUE

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

condition in the performance of duty on June 25, 2018. 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the August 14, 2018 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 27, 2018 appellant, then a 38-year old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 25, 2018 she experienced an anxiety attack while 

delivering mail to a liquor store while in the performance of duty. She explained that a person put 

his hand on her forehead like he had a gun. J.V., a supervisor and manager of customer service at 

the employing establishment, controverted the claim and indicated on the claim form that after 

viewing video from store surveillance, the story does not match.

In support of her claim appellant provided an undated statement. She explained that she 

was delivering mail to a liquor store and “a man put his hand on my forehead like he had a gun 

and said pow like he shot me.” Appellant alleged that when she asked him why he did that, he 

replied, “I don’t care, I don’t believe in God.” She noted that she ran inside the liquor store and 

asked if they saw what happened. Appellant indicated that the “store man said he saw what 

happened and told me the man was acting a fool before I came in.” She alleged that she 

immediately called her manager. Appellant confirmed that the store had cameras and that her 

manager and coworker arrived to view the video and to see the man who confronted her. 

In a June 26, 2018 letter, N.S., an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) consultant, noted 

that appellant experienced a traumatic incident at work on Monday, June 25, 2018. She explained 

that they met to discuss appellant’s needs and recommended that she not go on the street for three 

days, or until she was able to do so. 

In a July 3, 2018 letter, P.R., a health and resource management specialist, controverted 

the claim. She noted that Supervisor J.V. obtained video security footage of the incident from the 

liquor store which revealed appellant having a dialogue with a man upon entering the business. 

However, it did not show any sort of actions as described.

In a development letter dated July 10, 2018, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

in her claim and explained the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim.

It asked appellant to complete a questionnaire describing the events surrounding her injury and the 

nature of her relationship, if any, with the assailant. OWCP afforded her 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence. Appellant did not respond to the questionnaire.

OWCP received a June 29, 2018 return to work report from Dr. Geetha Ganesan, a Boardcertified internist. Dr. Ganasan diagnosed anxiety and panic attacks and indicated that appellant 

experienced a work-related injury on June 25, 2018. She released appellant to work without 

restrictions on July 9, 2018. 

In a letter dated July 11, 2018, J.V. controverted the claim. He explained that the video 

surveillance of the alleged incident showed that what appellant claimed had not happened. 

In a July 20, 2018 Statement of Hospitalization/Treatment and Return to Work note

Dr. Rina A. Patel, a Board-certified psychiatrist, indicated that appellant was incapacitated for the 
3

period July 5 to 18, 2018. She recommended that appellant work inside for her first week of work 

and then return to her route.

In a July 27, 2018 report Mary Pellman, a licensed professional counselor (LPC), noted 

that appellant received treatment for the period July 20 to August 15, 2018. OWCP also received 

a duplicate copy of the June 26, 2018 letter from N.S., the EAP consultant. 

By decision dated August 14, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. It found that she had 

not met her burden of proof to establish an injury in the performance of duty. OWCP explained 

that the evidence of record did not establish that the injury and/or medical condition arose during 

the course of employment and within the scope of compensable work factors. It advised that the 

reason for this finding was that appellant had not responded to the questionnaire and it was unclear 

if there was a personal relationship away from work between appellant and the alleged assailant.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

To establish her claim that she sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty, 

appellant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing that she has an emotional 

or stress-related disorder; (2) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged 

to have caused or contributed to her condition; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence 

establishing that the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to her stressrelated condition.3

 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, OWCP should then 

determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor.4 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.5

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,

6

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.7 

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 her emotional reaction to a 

special assignment or other requirement imposed by the employing establishment or by the nature 

 

3 Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).

4 Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

5

Id.

6 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

7 See Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999).
4

of the work.8 Allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an 

emotional condition claim.9

Assaults arise out of the employment either if the risk of assault is increased because of the 

nature or setting of the work or if the reason for the assault was a quarrel having its origin in the 

work. Assaults for private reasons do not arise out of the employment unless, by facilitating an 

assault that would not otherwise be made, the employment becomes a contributing factor.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty on June 25, 2018. 

Appellant’s claim pertains to an alleged event that occurred on June 25, 2018, while she 

was delivering mail. She has claimed that a person put his hand on her forehead like he had a gun

and said “pow.” OWCP accepted that appellant had a dialogue with the alleged assailant on 

June 25, 2018, outside the liquor store, but that she had not established that the incident of June 25, 

2018, occurred in the performance of duty. J.V., appellant’s supervisor, controverted the claim 

and explained that the video of the incident showed that what appellant claimed had not happened. 

In a July 10, 2018 development letter, OWCP requested further information regarding the 

incident and the nature of appellant’s relationship with the assailant. However, appellant did not 

respond.11 Her failure to respond to the development letter prevented OWCP from determining 

whether the incident arose from her employment or for a private reason. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof 

to establish that the claimed incident occurred as alleged. Therefore, appellant has not met her 

burden of proof to establish that she sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

As she did not establish a compensable employment factor, the Board need not consider the 

medical evidence of record.12

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this decision regarding the merits of appellant’s claim, pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607. 

 

8 Lillian Cutler, supra note 6. 

9

J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008).

10 See R.A., 59 ECAB 581 (2008).

11 See David S. Lee, 56 ECAB 602 (2005).

12 See Katherine A. Berg, 54 ECAB 262 (2002).
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty on June 25, 2018. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 14, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 24, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board