United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Panama City, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0461

Issued: June 2, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 26, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 15, 2019 merit 

decision1 of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 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.3

 

1 Appellant requested an appeal from a June 26, 2019 merit decision. For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued 

on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review authority is limited to appeals that are filed within 180 days from 

the date of issuance of OWCP’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e). As appellant’s December 26, 2019 notice of 

appeal was more than 180 days from the June 26, 2019 merit decision, the Board took jurisdiction over the 

November 15, 2019 merit decision.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that, following the November 15, 2019 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP and on appeal to the Board. 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

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 February 26, 2019 appellant, then a 60-year-old mail clerk, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained an emotional condition in the performance 

of duty. She noted that she first became aware of her condition on April 23, 2013 and realized its 

relation to her federal employment on February 20, 2019. Appellant claimed that on December 12, 

2018 she was approached by D.T., a postmaster, who told her that there was delayed mail and 

informed her that he had told a coworker to “get it out.” She further claimed that on April 1, 2013 

she was improperly placed on emergency placement when she worked at the Munster Station Post 

Office in Indiana. Appellant stopped work on December 24, 2018. 

Accompanying the Form CA-2, appellant submitted a hand-written 26-page statement, 

some of which contained illegible writing, and a 5-page typed statement. In these statements, she

further discussed her work at the Munster Station Post Office in Indiana prior to working in 

Panama City, Florida. While stationed there, C.G., an employing establishment manager, found 

delayed mail that had not been reported and appellant was subsequently put on emergency 

placement. Appellant indicated that she sought medical treatment and was diagnosed with 

generalized anxiety disorder. When she moved to Panama City, Florida, she shared some of her 

experiences from the Munster Station Post Office with D.T. Appellant asserted that, at one point, 

D.T. had questioned her as to why a truck left the dock approximately an hour late. She noted that 

she subsequently apologized to D.T. for her reaction to this matter, but explained that whenever 

she was accused of delaying things, it “set her off.”

Appellant indicated that, while working in Panama City, Florida she told D.T. that she had 

instructed A.F., a coworker, to throw away circulars. She recalled thinking about whether she 

would get fired and explained that this occurred in the context of Panama City’s mail delivery 

having been affected by Hurricane Michael in October 2018. On December 12, 2018 appellant

observed D.T. telling a coworker that there was delayed mail and that he had to “get it out.” She

indicated that she then saw some delayed circulars and told A.F. to throw them away. Appellant

asserted that in her mind that was what D.T. wanted her to do. However, based upon the 

subsequent actions of her coworkers, she felt that she had been “set up” by management. Appellant

noted that she had experienced a nightmare and she informed D.T. on February 18, 2019 that W.F., 

another manager, had manipulated D.T., and that A.F. had thrown away the mail. She explained 

that she had suffered an anxiety attack on December 12, 2018 and, therefore, told A.F. to throw 

the mail away. Appellant indicated that D.T. told her that she was not in trouble regarding the 

matter.

Appellant also submitted December 28, 2018 and February 6, 2019 reports from Blythe 

Smith, a licensed clinical professional counselor, who indicated that appellant was under her care 

for acute stress disorder and anxiety. 
3

In a February 25, 2019 e-mail from two officials of the employing establishment’s Office 

of Inspector General (OIG), D.T. reported that appellant had confessed to him that she had thrown 

away every door direct mail (EDDM) in November or December 2018 and that the mail was 

discovered in an undeliverable bulk business mail (UBBM) container. He noted that appellant’s 

story was confusing and he did not fully understand the dates and timeframes. D.T. indicated that 

she alleged that it had been brought to her attention that there was delayed mail and she threw it 

away in the UBBM container because of her panic/anxiety disorder. In addition, appellant told 

him that there had been a prior incident in Indiana where she was “set up” with delayed mail in 

her building and she was put on emergency placement. In a subsequent February 25, 2019 e-mail

to D.T., one of the OIG officials noted that, since there was no evidence of delayed or discarded 

mail being observed or recovered, she would not be interviewed.

In a February 27, 2019 claim challenge letter, D.T. denied that his actions would have led 

appellant to believe that she could throw away mail or instruct a coworker to do so. He indicated 

that she advised him on February 18, 2019 that she had thrown away an EDDM mailing in 

December 2018. D.T. indicated that he had no idea what appellant was talking about and that he 

had no knowledge of anyone throwing away mail. He advised that he had documented two

incidents that he was aware of relative to undelivered mail, but noted that no one ever accused 

appellant of throwing away mail. D.T. noted, “[t]he only thing that occurred is that it was brought 

to [appellant’s] attention that we had some delayed mail in the building and it needed to be 

delivered [as soon as possible].”

In a March 5, 2019 development letter, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

factual and medical evidence in support of her claim. By a separate letter of even date, it also 

requested that the employing establishment provide additional information. OWCP afforded both 

parties 30 days to respond. 

In response, appellant submitted a March 20, 2019 statement in which she indicated that 

she had suffered an anxiety attack that caused her to tell A.F. to discard a pallet of circulars. She 

asserted that D.T. “hazed” her relative to this matter. Appellant further claimed that she had been 

intentionally embarrassed, harassed, humiliated, and ridiculed by managers. She claimed that she 

was made to “take the fall” so that “these men” could save their jobs. Appellant claimed that D.T. 

mishandled her workers’ compensation claim, that she was issued improper disciplinary actions, 

and that she was wrongly subjected to investigation by the employing establishment’s OIG. She

submitted copies of text messages and e-mails between herself and coworkers and managers. 

Some of the e-mails contained discussions regarding discarded mail and regarding the functions 

of the OIG. Appellant also submitted additional medical evidence in support of her claim, 

including an April 23, 2013 report from Dr. Brian Dieckmann, a clinical psychologist, and an 

April 4, 2019 report from Dr. Nitin Thapar, an osteopath Board-certified in psychiatry.

In an April 4, 2019 letter, OWCP requested further information from the employing 

establishment, including whether appellant had any past or pending disciplinary or investigative 

actions. It also requested that the employing establishment respond to her statements of record. 

OWCP afforded the employing establishment 30 days to respond.

In response, D.T., provided another statement in which he disagreed with appellant’s

allegations, asserting that he has never given an instruction to discard deliverable mail. He 
4

indicated that, to his knowledge, any delayed mail that was discovered was delivered. D.T. 

maintained that appellant’s admission of throwing away mail (or ordering it to be thrown away) 

was of her own doing, and was only revealed to him on a later date due to her own confession. He 

advised that she had no active disciplinary action on file, but he noted that, if she returned to work, 

she might be subject to discipline as disposal of deliverable mail was a serious offense. D.T.

explained that Panama City, Florida had been severely impacted by Hurricane Michael on 

October 10, 2018 and that the recovery efforts took weeks. He indicated that all of Panama City 

had delayed mail due to this weather event. D.T. denied that he gave appellant improper 

instructions with respect to the pallet of circulars.

D.T. further denied that management officials conspired with a craft employee to “haze 

[appellant].” He noted that appellant ultimately turned in her badge, keys, and other items on 

February 21, 2019. D.T. denied that he had mishandled her workers’ compensation claim, noting 

that he initially incorrectly filled out a compensation form, but immediately corrected it and 

properly resubmitted it. He confirmed that trucks often departed late due to returning carriers, but 

that this did not constitute a case of delayed mail. D.T. further denied appellant’s allegation that 

she was intentionally embarrassed harassed, humiliated, ridiculed, and emotionally at risk so that 

“these men” can save their jobs. He indicated that he was not aware of any OIG investigation with 

regard to appellant. D.T. asserted that policy was followed when appellant’s system access was 

revoked due to her incapacity from work. He noted that documents demonstrated that she told him 

multiple times that she was retiring and that she had turned in her keys, badge, and other items.

In April 26, 2019 development letter, OWCP indicated that it was providing appellant an 

opportunity to respond to the employing establishment’s controversion of her claim. In response, 

appellant reiterated the assertions made in her previously submitted statements. She also submitted

numerous copies of text messages sent between her and various other individuals.

Appellant also submitted a number of witness statements. In an undated statement, H.S., 

the postmaster from the Greenwood Post Office in Indiana, noted that appellant was put on 

emergency placement, but she was not issued any corrective actions due to many extenuating 

circumstances. In a May 2, 2019 statement, E.K., a coworker, indicated that she witnessed 

appellant tell K.E. to throw away or disregard his circular mail. In a May 3, 2019 statement, K.E. 

noted that circulars were left at his case and she told him that she had been given permission to 

place the circulars in the UBBM container. In a May 3, 2019 statement, L.G., a coworker,

indicated that appellant informed him that she would be retiring because she had told A.F. to throw 

away a pallet of circulars. He noted that appellant thought that this was what her supervisor had 

told her to do when he stated to get rid of the delayed mail. In a May 3, 2019 statement, J.L., a 

coworker, generally asserted that appellant was being harassed by several postal managers. In a 

May 6, 2019 statement, D.B., a coworker, indicated that appellant had been put on emergency 

placement for allegedly delaying mail, but that no corrective action was taken. In a May 23, 2019 

statement, J.H., a coworker noted that there was a rumor going around that appellant was fired for 

putting box holders in UBBM containers. In a May 23, 2019 statement, E.H., a coworker, 

indicated that there was a lot of mail that could not be delivered. He noted that there were rumors 

that appellant was going to be fired for putting first class mail in UBBM containers. Appellant 

also submitted statements from coworkers, as well as individuals not connected with her work, 

who generally attested to her good character and the emotional toll of her problems at work. 
5

Appellant submitted a September 21, 2009 letter of warning from the employing 

establishment due to failure to complete a required audit by August 19, 2009. She also submitted 

an October 15, 2009 proposed warning in lieu of a time-off suspension from the employing 

establishment. This document related to appellant’s office failing a service audit when delayed 

mail was found in multiple carrier cases. In a May 5, 2019 e-mail to her, a manager described his 

interaction with two OIG investigators. Appellant submitted additional medical evidence, 

including June 13 and July 3, 2017, and March 13, 2019 reports of Dr. Augustine Izah, a Boardcertified family practitioner.

By decision dated June 26, 2019, OWCP denied the claim, finding that appellant had not 

met her burden of proof to establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty, as alleged. 

It determined that the evidence did not support that the employment incident(s) occurred as she 

described. 

Appellant disagreed with the June 26, 2019 decision and requested a review of the written 

record before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. She submitted a 

July 24, 2019 statement in which she provided a description of her claimed employment factors,

which was similar to that contained in prior statements. Appellant also submitted additional 

counseling reports of Ms. Smith.

By decision dated November 15, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the 

June 26, 2019 decision to find that, although the employment incident(s) occurred as she described,

the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that a medical condition arose during the course 

of employment and within the scope of compensable work factors.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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, that an injury was sustained while 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.5 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.6

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 

 

4 Supra note 2.

5 A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); see T.O., Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

October 29, 2018); see Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).
6

evidence establishing that the accepted compensable employment factors are causally related to 

the diagnosed emotional condition.7

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment. There are situations where an injury or an illness 

has some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the concept or 

coverage of workers’ compensation. Where the disability results from an employee’s emotional 

reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the 

employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.8 On the other hand, the disability 

is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force or 

his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a 

particular position.9

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.10 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.11

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 

not be considered.12 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, it must base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.13

 

7 See S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014); 

Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

8 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

9 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

10 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838, 841 (1987).

11 P.B., Docket No. 17-1912 (issued December 28, 2018); Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993).

12 See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992).

13 Id.
7

ANALYSIS

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

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

Appellant has alleged that she sustained an emotional condition as a result of a number of 

employment incidents and work conditions. OWCP denied her emotional condition claim finding 

that she had not established a compensable employment factor. The Board must, therefore, 

initially review whether these alleged incidents are covered employment factors under the terms 

of FECA.14

The Board notes that appellant’s claim does not directly relate to her regular or specially 

assigned duties under Lillian Cutler.

15

 Rather, appellant primarily claimed that management 

committed error and abuse with respect to various administrative/personnel matters. She also 

claimed that management subjected her to harassment and discrimination.

With respect to administrative or personnel matters, appellant claimed that management 

officials, including D.T., gave her improper instructions and incorrectly led her to believe that she 

had to discard mail as undeliverable, including on an occasion in December 2018. She claimed 

that she was issued improper disciplinary actions and was wrongly subjected to investigation by 

the employing establishment’s OIG. Appellant also asserted that D.T. wrongly accused her of 

delaying mail and otherwise unfairly criticized her. She claimed that D.T. mishandled her 

workers’ compensation claim. Appellant further asserted that she was wrongly put on emergency 

placement status when she worked at another employing establishment location in Indiana.

The Board has held that administrative and personnel matters, although generally related 

to the employee’s employment, are administrative functions of the employing establishment rather 

than the regular or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under 

FECA.16 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, 

coverage will be afforded.17 In determining whether the employing establishment has erred or 

acted abusively, the Board will examine the factual evidence of record to determine whether the 

employing establishment acted reasonably.18

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the abovenoted claims about administrative/personnel matters. Appellant submitted e-mails and 

memoranda, which concerned some of these administrative/personnel matters, but the 

 

14 Y.W., Docket No. 19-1877 (issued April 30, 2020); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

15 See Lillian Cutler, supra note 8.

16 T.L., Docket No. 18-0100 (issued June 20, 2019); Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 

41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

17 M.S., Docket No. 19-1589 (issued October 7, 2020); William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

18 J.W., Docket No. 17-0999 (issued September 4, 2018); Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).
8

communications did not show that the employing establishment committed error or abuse with 

respect to these matters. There is no indication that she obtained a final determination from an 

administrative body showing that the employing establishment committed error or abuse.19 

Although appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of several superiors, the Board has 

held that mere dislike or disagreement with certain supervisory actions will not be compensable 

absent error or abuse on the part of the supervisor.20 Appellant has not substantiated error or abuse 

committed by the employing establishment in the above-noted matters and, therefore, she has not 

established a compensable employment factor with respect to administrative or personnel matters.

Appellant also alleged harassment and discrimination by supervisors and managers. She

claimed that D.T. “hazed” her with respect to the incident when she told A.F. to discard a pallet of

circulars. Appellant further asserted that she had been intentionally embarrassed, harassed, 

humiliated, and ridiculed by management and that she was made to “take the fall” so that 

unidentified managers could save their jobs. To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as 

constituting harassment are established as occurring and arising from an employee’s performance 

of his or her regular duties, these could constitute employment factors.21 The Board has held that 

unfounded perceptions of harassment do not constitute an employment factor.22 Mere perceptions 

are not compensable under FECA and harassment can constitute a factor of employment if it is 

shown that the incidents constituting the claimed harassment actually occurred.23 

Appellant, however, did not submit corroborative evidence in support of her allegations 

regarding harassment/discrimination. She submitted numerous witness statements, but none of 

these statements contained a clear, detailed account of specific acts of harassment or 

discrimination.

24

 For example, in a May 3, 2019 statement, J.L., a coworker, generally asserted 

that appellant was being harassed by several postal managers. However, the statement was vague 

in nature and did not discuss specific actions that would constitute harassment or discrimination. 

Appellant did not submit the final findings of any complaint or grievance she might have filed 

with respect to these matters, such as an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint 

or a grievance filed with the employing establishment.25 Therefore, she has not established a 

compensable employment factor with respect to the claimed harassment and discrimination.

 

19 See M.R., Docket No. 18-0304 (issued November 13, 2018). 

20 T.C., Docket No. 16-0755 (issued December 13, 2016).

21 D.B., Docket No. 18-1025 (issued January 23, 2019); David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991).

22 See F.K., Docket No. 17-0179 (issued July 11, 2017). 

23 See id.

24 See B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2018).

25 Appellant established that a supervisor made certain comments, but she did not show that they rose to the level 

of harassment or discrimination. See generally C.T., Docket No. 08-2160 (issued May 7, 2009) (some statements may 

be considered abusive and constitute a compensable factor of employment, but not every statement uttered in the 

workplace is covered by FECA).
9

As the Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a 

compensable employment factor, it is not necessary to consider the medical evidence of record.26

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 in the performance of duty, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 15, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: June 2, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate 

Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

26 See B.O., Docket No. 17-1986 (issued January 18, 2019) (it is not necessary to consider the medical evidence of 

record if a claimant has not established any compensable employment factors). See also Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 

ECAB 496, 502-03 (1992).