United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0619

Issued: May 24, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 28, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 20, 2019 merit 

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

Boards assigned Docket No. 20-0619.

On September 4, 2018 appellant, then a 56-year-old management analyst, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) and that his depression and anxiety were aggravated by factors of his federal employment, 

including harassment and retaliation by his supervisor and director. He stopped work on 

July 31, 2018.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted e-mail correspondence, requests to work from 

home, and complaints of discrimination. He also submitted medical evidence.

By decision dated March 8, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim. Itnoted that he alleged 

that he was retaliated against due to his questioning of upper management decisions, his race, and 

preexisting conditions. OWCP found that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that 

the injury and/or events occurred as alleged. It explained that “after review of hundreds of 

documents we did not find any proof of such allegations of retaliation or discrimination.” OWCP 

also found that there was no medical evidence from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist with a 
2

narrative or medical rationale that appellant developed an emotional condition as a result of his 

federal employment, rather than his preexisting conditions. It concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

On March 13, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. The hearing was held on July 26, 2019. 

In an August 29, 2019 post-hearing statement, appellant asserted that he was concerned 

that the “extreme focus” during his hearing was on retaliation and OWCP ignored other parts of 

his claim. He listed additional alleged employment factors including that his workload increased 

in October 2017; denial of overtime on Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday in January 2018; a 

January 19, 2018 meeting with his supervisor; a January 30, 2018 Administrative Investigative 

Board hearing, and a January 31, 2018 letter of reprimand he received for sending his American 

Disabilities Act representative e-mails from his work email account. Appellant also referred to 

events during the period July to August 2018 pertaining to a request for reasonable accommodation 

regarding his interactions with his supervisor.

In a November 1, 2019 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated the March 8, 

2019 decision. The hearing representative noted that the issue was whether appellant sustained an 

emotional or stress-related condition in the performance of duty. The hearing representative found 

that appellant had provided multiple documents and a comprehensive account of the claimed work 

factors, including increased workload, reasonable accommodation request denials, supervisory/

management/agency retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. The hearing representative noted 

that OWCP had not fully addressed the evidence of record, discussed any specific work factors, or 

explained why the evidence was insufficient to establish compensability of the claimed factors 

under FECA. The hearing representative indicated that OWCP should review the evidence of 

record and identify whether any of the alleged factors was a compensable factor of employment,

why any specific factor was or was not in the performance of duty, and whether any factor was or 

was not factually substantiated. 

By decision dated December 20, 2019, OWCP found that appellant’s claimed factors were 

the result of his own emotional reaction to regular or specifically assigned duties or requirements

imposed by the employing establishment and were not related to his work as a management 

analyst. It denied his claim on the factual component of the third basic element, fact of injury, 

because the evidence did not support that the injury and/or events occurred. OWCP concluded 

that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

The Board, having duly considered this matter, concludes that this case is not in posture 

for decision.1 FECA provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact in making an 

award for or against payment of compensation after considering the claim presented by the 

employee and after completing such investigation as it considers necessary with respect to the 

1 N.M., Docket No. 17-0262 (issued July 3, 2017).
3

claim.2 The reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to 

understand the precise defect of the claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it. 3

The claims examiner should distinguish between those which are factors of employment 

and those which are outside the scope of employment for purposes of compensation by outlining 

work-related and nonwork-related elements.

4

 These should be labeled as alleged events that are 

factors of employment, alleged events that are not factors of employment, and compensable factors

which are not factually substantiated. When the matter asserted is a compensable factor of 

employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter asserted, OWCP must

then base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.

5

The Board finds that OWCP’s December 20, 2019 decision did not discharge its 

responsibility to set forth findings of fact and a clear statement of reasons explaining its disposition, 

so that appellant could understand the basis for the decision, as well as the precise defect and the 

evidence needed to overcome it.6 On September 11, 2018 appellant submitted a statement 

outlining specific employment factors which he alleged caused an emotional condition. While the 

OWCP hearing representative specifically remanded the case for OWCP to review the evidence 

of record and make the necessary findings, the Board finds that the December 20, 2019 decision 

did not do so. OWCP summarily denied the claim without explaining why the specific factor were 

not substantiated or compensable.

On remand OWCP shall make findings of fact as to whether the evidence of record 

establishes that any alleged events occurred as alleged, and if so, whether they constitute 

compensable factors of employment.

7 Following this and other such further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo merit decision.8

2

5 U.S.C. § 8124(a)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

3 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5(c) (February 2013). See 

also G.S., Docket No. 14-1933 (issued November 7, 2014).

4

Id. See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 

2.804.17.(j)(July 1997).

5 Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006).

6 K.J., Docket No. 14-1874 (issued February 26, 2015); see also J.J., Docket No. 11-1958 (issuedJune 27, 2012).

7 A.R., Docket No. 11-1949 (issued April16, 2012).

8 C.W., Docket No. 14-0693 (issued January 12, 2016).
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 20, 2019 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: May 24, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board