United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

WILMINGTON VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Wilmington, DE, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1381

Issued: June 21, 2022

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, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 8, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 16, 2021 merit decision 

and an August 5, 2021 nonmerit 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

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal and following OWCP’s August 5, 2021 

decision. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied 

appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 26, 2021 appellant, then a 55-year-old address management system technician, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she experienced a buildup of stress 

for months due to factors of her federal employment. She reported that she first became aware of 

her condition and realized its relation to her federal employment on December 28, 2020. On the 

reverse side of the claim form the employing establishment noted that appellant stopped work on 

December 28, 2020 and had not returned.

In a development letter dated June 1, 2021, OWCP noted that it did not receive any other 

documentation with her claim. It advised appellant of the factual and medical evidence necessary 

to establish her claim and attached a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development 

letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional 

information regarding her alleged injury. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

No further documentation was submitted.

By decision dated July 16, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, 

finding that she had not submitted evidence to establish a compensable employment factor. It 

found that the information provided on her Form CA-2 was insufficient to establish her claim 

because her statement as to the cause of her condition was general and nonspecific, and it was 

unclear as to exactly what aspects of her federal employment she was attributing to the cause of 

her emotional condition. OWCP explained that appellant had not established the factual 

component of her claim. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to 

establish an injury as defined by FECA.

Thereafter, OWCP received numerous medical reports comprised of treatment notes, 

hospital admission records, inpatient psychological treatment notes, nurses’ notes, and registered 

dietician notes dating from December 30, 2020 to June 24, 2021. These reports reflected that 

appellant was treated for anxiety and depression, with suicidal ideation, and a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

On July 30, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration noting that she had previously 

submitted evidence.

By decision dated August 5, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- 1SSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, as alleged, and that 

any disability or medical 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 upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

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) medical evidence establishing that he or she has an emotional 

or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that the 

emotional condition is causally related to the identified compensable employment factors.7

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment.8 There are situations where an injury or illness 

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

coverage under FECA.9 When disability results from an emotional reaction to regular or specially 

assigned work duties or a requirement imposed by the employment, the disability is deemed 

compensable.10 However, disability is not compensable when it results from factors such as an 

employee’s fear of reduction-in-force, or frustration from not being permitted to work in a 

particular environment or to hold a particular position.11

3

Supra note 1.

4

S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

5

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., 

Docket No. 13-1402 (issuedFebruary7, 2014); DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 W.F., Docket No. 18-1526 (issued November 26, 2019); C.V., Docket No. 18-0580 (issued September 17, 2018); 

George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004); Kathleen D. Walker, 42 ECAB 603 (1991).

8 L.Y., Docket No. 18-1619 (issued April12, 2019); L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007).

9 W.F., Docket No. 17-0640 (issued December 7, 2018); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005).

10 Pamela D. Casey, 57 ECAB 260, 263 (2005); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125, 129 (1976).

11 Lillian Cutler, id.
4

Allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an emotional 

condition claim.12 Where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he or she must 

substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence. 13 Personal perceptions alone 

are insufficient to establish an employment-related emotional condition.

14

 Administrative and 

personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s employment, are administrative 

functions of the employer rather than the regular or specially assigned work duties of the employee 

and are not covered under FECA.15 Where the evidence demonstrates that the employing 

establishment either erred or acted abusively in discharging its administrative or personnel 

responsibilities, such action will be considered a compensable employment factor.16

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability, there must be 

evidence which establishes that the acts alleged or implicated by the employee did, in fact, occur. 17 

Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA. 18 A claimant

must substantiate allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable evidence.

Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not determinative of whether such 

harassment or discrimination occurred.19 Additionally, verbal altercations and difficult 

relationships with supervisors, when sufficiently detailed by the claimant and supported by the 

record, may constitute factors of employment. This does not imply, however, that every statement 

uttered in the workplace will give rise to coverage under FECA.20 The claim must be supported 

by probative evidence.21 If a compensable factor of employment is substantiated, OWCP must 

base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence which has been submitted. 22

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged

12 A.R., Docket No. 18-0930 (issued June5, 2020); L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020); A.C., 

Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018).

13 L.S., id.; G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018).

14 M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019); see also A.C., supra note 12.

15 See A.R.,supra note 12; D.T., Docket No. 19-1270 (issued February 4, 2020).

16 M.A., supra note 14; RobertW. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999).

17 See R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issuedFebruary 14, 2020).

18 Id.

19 T.Y., Docket No. 19-0654 (issued November 5, 2019); RonaldK. Jablanski, 56 ECAB 616 (2005).

20 W.F., supra note 9.

21 See L.S., supra note 12.

22 Id.
5

Appellant filed an occupational disease claim alleging that she had experienced a buildup

of stress for months due to factors of her federal employment and that she was not sure if it was 

emotional abuse or mental abuse. In a development letter dated June 1, 2021, OWCP informed 

appellant that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish her claim and advised her of 

evidence needed. This was to include a detailed statement of employment factors that she believed 

contributed to her condition.

Appellant has not submitted a statement detailing the employment factors that she believed 

caused her claimed condition. A statement describing the particular employment factors that 

caused or contributed to the claimed condition is crucial to appellant’s claim.

23

 Appellant has only 

alleged in general terms on the claim form that she had experienced stress at work and that she 

first became aware of the illness and its relationship to her federal employment on

December 28, 2020. She did not describe any specific work factors or events related to her claimed

job-related stress.

Because appellant has not provided a factual statement describing in detail the employment 

factors that she alleged caused or contributed to her stress at work, the Board finds that she has not 

met her burden of proof to establish a claim for compensation.24 As appellant has not established 

the factual component of her claim by establishing a compensable factor of employment, the Board 

need not address the medical evidence of record with respect to causal relationship. 25

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.

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- 1SSUE 2

Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether 

to review an award for or against compensation. The Secretary of Labor may review an award for 

or against compensation at any time on his or her own motion or on application.26

To require OWCP to reopen a case for merit review pursuant to FECA, the claimant must 

provide evidence or an argument which: (1) shows that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted 

a specific point of law; (2) advances a relevant legal argument not previously considered by 

23 L.B., Docket No. 17-2023 (issued August 21, 2018).

24 See R.B., supra note 17.

25 See S.S., Docket No. 18-0242 (issued June 11, 2018); MargaretS. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-03 (1992).

26 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see T.C., Docket No. 20-1536 (issued April23, 2021); M.S., Docket No. 19-1001 (issued 

December 9, 2019); L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 17-1287 (issued 

October 10, 2017); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).
6

OWCP; or (3) constitutes relevant and pertinent new evidence not previously considered by 

OWCP.27

A request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of the date of 

OWCP’s decision for which review is sought.28 If it chooses to grant reconsideration, it reopens 

and reviews the case on its merits.29 If the request is timely, but fails to meet at least one of the 

requirements for reconsideration, OWCP will deny the request for reconsideration without 

reopening the case for review on the merits.30

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 2

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the 

merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

Appellant’s reconsideration request did not advance a new legal argument not previously 

considered, nor show that OWCP erroneously applied or interpreted a specific point of law. Thus, 

appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the first and second abovenoted requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3).31

Appellant also did not submitrelevant new and pertinent evidence in support of herrequest 

for reconsideration.32 The underlying issue in the case was whether appellant established the 

factual component of her claim. The reconsideration request did not include any factual evidence 

identifying compensable employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to 

her alleged emotional condition. Medical evidence as to her emotional condition does not provide 

a basis as to the factual component of her claim.33 The submission of evidence or argument, which 

does not address the particular issue involved, does not constitute a basis for reopening a claim.34 

27 20 C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3); see L.D., id.; see also K.L., Docket No. 17-1479 (issued December 20, 2017); C.N., 

Docket No. 08-1569 (issued December 9, 2008).

28 Id. at § 10.607(a). The one-year period begins on the next day after the date of the original contested decision. 

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4 (September 2020).

Timeliness is determined by the document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as indicated by the received 

date in the Integrated Federal Employees’Compensation System (iFECS). Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4b.

29 Id. at § 10.608(a); see also M.S., 59 ECAB 231 (2007).

30 Id. at § 10.608(b); M.S., Docket No. 19-0291 (issued June 21, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-1655 (issued 

March 18, 2010).

31 G.Q., Docket No. 18-1697 (issued March 21, 2019); Alan G. Williams, 52 ECAB 180 (2000).

32 See F.D., Docket No. 19-0890 (issued November 8, 2019).

33 A.P., Docket No. 18-0930 (issued June 5, 2020); R.B., supra note 17.

34 M.E., Docket No. 18-0553 (issued November 5, 2018).
7

Thus, appellant is not entitled to a review of the merits of her claim based on the third above-noted 

requirement under section 10.606(b)(3).35

The Board, accordingly, finds that appellant did not meet any of the requirements of 20 

C.F.R. § 10.606(b)(3). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 10.608, OWCP properly denied merit review.36

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. The Board further finds that OWCP properly 

denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8128(a).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 16 and August 5, 2021 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: June 21, 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

35 T.M., Docket No. 19-0535 (issued July 25, 2019); Edward Matthew Diekemper, 31 ECAB 224-25 (1979).

36 See S.M., Docket No. 18-0673 (issued January 25, 2019); A.R., Docket No. 16-1416 (issued April10, 2017); 

M.E., 58 ECAB 694 (2007); SusanA. Filkins, 57 ECAB 630 (2006) (when a request for reconsideration does not meet 

at least one of the three requirements enumerated under section 10.606(b), OWCP will deny the request for 

reconsideration without reopening the case for a review on the merits).