United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FARM 

SERVICE AGENCY, Harrodsburg, KY, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0279

Issued: October 12, 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 December 14, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 30, 2020 merit 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

1 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of her oral argument request, appellant asserted that oral argument should be granted because she would like 

to discuss her case if paperwork was not sufficient to prove her case. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies 

herrequest for oral argument because the arguments on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a 

review of the case record. Oral argument in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve 

a useful purpose. As such, the oral argument request is denied and this decision is based on the case record as 

submitted to the Board. 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

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

condition causally related to the accepted compensable employment factor. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 8, 2019 appellant, then a 52-year-old program technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she was attacked in the employing 

establishment in July 2017 and had suffered post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety 

attacks, depression, and headaches since that time. She indicated that she first became aware of 

her condition and that it was related to factors of her federal employment on October 28, 2019. 

Appellant stopped work on October 28, 2019.

In a development letter dated November 13, 2019, OWCP advised appellant that it had not 

received any documentation with her claim form. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence necessary to establish her claim and attached a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In response, appellant submitted a report dated May 15, 2019 from Dr. Courtney D. 

Maiden, an osteopath specializing in family medicine. Dr. Maiden noted that appellant related 

that she had anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, and thoughts of death which started in February due 

to significant stress at work after she brought issues to her supervisor’s attention. She also related

that appellant’s husband currently had family members who were ill and that appellant’s husband’s 

family responsibilities caused appellant to handle extra duties on her farm.

In a report dated May 31, 2019, Dr. Maiden related that appellant continued experiencing 

headaches triggered by stress and was not sleeping well.

On June 19, 2019 Dr. John A Allahham, a Board-certified psychiatrist and geriatric 

specialist, related that appellant had a history of depression, anxiety, worries, tension, and 

decreased sleep. He noted that she had related that all of these symptoms began a few months ago 

due to work-related stress over a conflict with a producer who physically threatened her. 

Dr. Allahham diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.

OWCP received a report dated July 5, 2019 from Dr. Maiden wherein she related that 

appellant was still experiencing panic attacks, severe anxiety, and shortness of breath. Appellant 

also related that she suffered debilitating headaches.

In a report dated July 12, 2019, Dr. Maiden noted that appellant reported dizziness which 

she attributed to stress. She also stated that appellant also suffered from migraines and had a hard 

time finding words and had blurry vision. Dr. Maiden related that she had advised appellant to 

follow up with her psychiatrist and to stop blaming herself for everything going on at work. 

In a report dated August 16, 2019, Dr. Allahham, related that appellant complained of 

headaches and insomnia related to her job. He noted that she was now being asked to drive to 

different offices to perform her work and that she did not like to drive. Dr. Allahham diagnosed

adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. 
3

OWCP received a report dated September 24, 2019 from Dr. Maiden wherein she related

that appellant had undergone a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and that no abnormalities

were found.

In a therapy assessment dated October 2, 2019, Nathan Mayo, a licensed professional 

clinical counselor, related that appellant complained of anxiety, panic, depression, PTSD, and 

headaches and also had a previous history of bipolar disorder. He stated that she felt retaliated

against because she was a whistleblower at work, and that she had related an incident when 

someone threatened her at work. Appellant had related that loud noises and screaming has 

triggered flashbacks and she has not been able to sleep, avoided going places, and has been hyper 

vigilant. She also related that her husband was verbally abusive, but she may have been too

sensitive since the attack at work.

In reports dated October 8 and 21, 2019, Erica Cecil, a registered nurse, related that 

appellant had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and currently was diagnosed with PTSD after 

appellant was attacked by a coworker, her brother-in-law, in 2017. Appellant related that he had 

hit her with crutches and called her donkey ears. She also related that she was afraid she that was 

going to lose her job.

In a report dated October 11, 2019, Dr. Maiden noted appellant’s diagnoses of bipolar 

disorder, PTSD, and anxiety. 

In a report dated October 15, 2019, Dr. Allahham again diagnosed adjustment disorder 

with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.

On November 1, 2019 appellant filed a claim for traumatic injury (Form CA-1) alleging 

that on July 17, 2017 she was attacked at work and that she had sustained a mental breakdown in 

May 2019. A witness, T.H., noted on the claim form that he was present when a producer was 

held by two police officers. Appellant’s supervisor indicated on the reverse of the claim form 

checked a box marked “No” that appellant was not injured in the performance of duty. He 

explained, “Not to my knowledge. I was not present during the event.”

Appellant provided a narrative statement wherein she alleged that she was mentally and 

physically attacked by producer, L.W., who was also her brother-in-law. She stated that L.W. was 

mad over a mistake on his crop report and swung his crutch over the counter at her and called her 

many derogatory names, while she was alone in the office with him. Appellant related that 

someone heard her scream and called the police. After the incident, she asked her manager to 

transfer the producer to a different office, however, this did not happen and she was forced to wait 

on him until she was transferred to a different office. Appellant stated that after the incident she 

had PTSD, anxiety attacks, and depression. 

OWCP received witness statements. In one witness statement, L.L., a worker in a nearby 

office, stated that she heard the producer, L.W., screaming at appellant on the day of incident. In 

a separate letter, appellant’s husband, J.W., stated that he saw the producer, his brother, go into 

the office on the day of the incident. Appellant’s brother, R.H., also submitted a witness statement 

which stated that appellant called him about the incident. OWCP received a letterfrom a producer, 
4

B.W., who recounted that when he came into appellant’s office that day, he saw L.W., with two 

police officers.

In a letter dated November 26, 2019, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim. It challenged the claim asserting that it took appellant two years to seek treatment and that 

the alleged incident was committed by her brother-in-law. The employing establishment also 

submitted a response to the questionnaire dated December 12, 2019. It confirmed that the 

appellant’s brother-in-law entered the office and verbally berated her; however, it indicated that 

appellant did not report a physical assault until 2019.

Appellant submitted a letter dated December 16, 2019 from Dr. Getulio Tovar, a Boardcertified psychiatrist, who diagnosed panic disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. Dr. Tovar

confirmed that appellant had been treated in his office since October 2, 2019.

OWCP received a letter dated January 15, 2020, accepting and referring appellant’s Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint for further investigation. The complaint alleged 

discrimination and harassment towards appellant based on age following the 2017 incident. 

By decision dated May 6, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish an emotional condition that arose during the course of 

employment and within the scope of compensable work factors as defined by FECA.

On June 2, 2020 appellant requested a hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch 

of Hearings and Review.

A police incident report on July 17, 2017 indicated that appellant wanted L.W. to leave the 

premises.

Appellant submitted an additional statements and notes. OWCP received a statement she

made to the employing establishment’s personnel misconduct investigator. Appellant recounted 

that she was verbally and physically attacked by a producer, L.W., on July 17, 2017 and that L.W. 

verbally attacked her again in 2019. She also stated that she filed an EEO complaint. 

Appellant submitted several documents regarding her EEO complaint, including an 

affidavit, an EEO claim acknowledgement letter dated May 20, 2019, a reasonable accommodation 

request dated August 7, 2019, an e-mail dated September 13, 2019 granting her a new workplace 

assignment, and a letter dated December 6, 2019 from OPM approving her disability retirement 

due to bipolar disorder. 

OWCP received a letter dated December 20, 2019 from Dr. Maiden, which related that 

appellant was diagnosed with panic/anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. 

Appellant submitted a statement dated May 25, 2020 from a coworker, E.G., who related 

that L.W. continued to come into the office and harass appellant through March 2019. L.W. made 

rude remark.

In a letter dated September 9, 2020, the employing establishment confirmed that a verbal 

altercation had occurred between a producer, L.W., appellant’s brother-in-law, and appellant, that 
5

police had been called, and that L.W. had been escorted from the building. No physical assault 

had occurred. The employing establishment indicated that it had never retaliated or threatened 

appellant. 

By decision dated October 30, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed as modified 

OWCP’s May 6, 2020 decision. The hearing representative found that the verbal altercation was 

a compensable employment factor as the evidence showed that the incident occurred and that its 

origin was work related and not a personal matter between the parties in the workplace . The 

hearing representative, however, continued to deny appellant’s claim as she failed to submit a 

medical opinion establishingcausal relationship between the diagnosed conditionand the accepted

compensable employment factor.

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 filed within the applicable time

limitation of FECA, that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury. 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.4

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

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

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

an emotional condition or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence

establishing that the emotional condition is causally related to the identified compensable 

employment factors.5

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused or 

adversely affected by employment factors.6 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions which he or she believes caused or adversely 

affected a condition for which compensation is claimed, and a rationalized medical opinion 

relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.7

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background, must be 

3

Id.

4 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June17, 2020); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).

5 W.F., Docket No. 18-1526 (issued November 26, 2019); C.M., Docket No. 17-1076 (issued November 14, 2018); 

C.V., Docket No. 18-0580 (issued September 17, 2018); KathleenD. Walker, 42 ECAB 603 (1991).

6 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); PamelaR. Rice, 38 ECAB 838 (1987).

7 P.B., Docket No. 17-1912(issued December 28, 2018); Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470 (1993).
6

one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.8

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted compensable employment factor.

OWCP accepted that appellant was verbally assaulted on July 17, 2017 by L.W., in the 

performance of duty. In support of her claim, appellant submitted reports from Dr. Maiden, who

noted appellant’s symptoms of anxiety, panic attacks, confusion, headaches, and in her October 11, 

2019 report she diagnosed bipolar disorder, PTSD and anxiety. Dr. Tovar also diagnosed bipolar 

disorder, PTSD, and anxiety. Dr. Allahham diagnosed adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety 

and depressed mood. However, these physicians did not provide their own rationalized medical 

opinion explaining the causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed conditions and the 

accepted compensable employment factor. 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.9 As such, these reports are insufficient to establish appellant’s 

claim.

OWCP also received an October 2, 2019 therapy assessment from Mr. Mayo, a licensed 

professional clinical counselor, and records dated October 8 and 21, 2019 from Ms. Cecil, an 

advanced practice registered nurse. Section 8101(2) of FECA defines the term “physician” to 

include surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, and 

osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by state law. 10 Certain 

healthcare providers such as physician assistants, nurse practitioners, physical therapists, and 

mental health counselors are not considered physicians as defined under FECA.11 Consequently,

Mr. Mayo and Ms. Cecil’s records will not suffice for purposes of establishing entitlement to 

FECA benefits.12

8 D.M., Docket No. 20-0314 (issued June 30, 2020); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345 (1989).

9 D.C., Docket No. 19-1093 (issued June 25, 2020); see L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August27, 2018); D.K., 

Docket No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

10 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) provides that physician “includes surgeons, podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, 

optometrists, chiropractors, and osteopathic practitioners within the scope of their practice as defined by State law,”

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Causal Relationship, Chapter 

2.805.3a(1) (January 2013); J.B., Docket No. 20-1566 (issued August31, 2021); DavidP. Sawchuk, 57 ECAB 316, 

320 n.11 (2006) (lay individuals such as physician assistants, nurses, and physical therapists are not competent to 

render a medical opinion under FECA).

11 See L.H., Docket No. 18-1217 (issued May 3, 2019) (finding that licensed social workers and mental health 

counselors are not considered physicians as defined by FECA).

12 Id.; see also M.C., Docket No. 19-1074 (issued June 12, 2020) (nurse practitioners are not considered physicians 

under FECA).
7

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence explaining how her 

diagnosed emotional conditions were causally related to the accepted June 17, 2017 compensable 

employment factor, the Board finds that she has not met her burden on proof.13

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.

CONCLUSION

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

condition causally related to the accepted compensable employment factor. 

13 D.B., Docket No. 19-1543 (issued March 6, 2020); J.W., Docket No. 19-0237 (issued July 1, 2019).
8

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 30, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 12, 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