United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ANACOSTIA POST 

OFFICE, Temple Hills, MD, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1767

Issued: March 18, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 20, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 8, 2019 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 a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted May 15, 2019 employment incident.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2 The Board notes that, following the July 8, 2019 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 May 22, 2019 appellant, then a 33-year-old city letter carrier, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on May 17, 2019 she developed anxiety and stress because she 

was caught in the middle of a shooting while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side of 

the claim form her supervisor controverted her claim, asserting that the date of the incident was 

incorrect and that there was no evidence that appellant needed to miss work.

In an accompanying narrative statement, appellant noted that she was caught in the middle 

of a shootout while delivering mail. She indicated that she notified her manager of the incident 

and attempted to complete her route. Appellant asserted that she noticed “mysterious, tinted 

vehicles speeding from one end to the next with their guns toted and shooting,” along her route. 

She related that she was unable to complete her route and stopped work for the day after informing 

her manager.

In a May 23, 2019 letter, appellant’s supervisor controverted her claim. She clarified that 

the employment incident took place on May 15, 2019, not May 17, 2019. Appellant’s supervisor 

also alleged that appellant had not been seen by a physician to diagnose an injury or determine if 

she needed to stop work for any length of time. She further argued that appellant’s emotional 

condition could have been caused by a personal issue and not the employment incident. 

Appellant’s supervisor noted that appellant stopped work on May 15, 2019 because she did not 

feel safe. She indicated that appellant returned to work on May 22, 2019 and continued to deliver 

mail on the same route.

In a development letter dated May 31, 2019, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter 

of even date, OWCP notified the employing establishment of appellant’s emotional condition 

claim. It requested comments from a knowledgeable supervisor and any additional information 

such as witness statements or corroborating documents. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to 

submit the necessary evidence.

In response, appellant submitted two documents that verified that she saw Veronica M. 

Kirkland, Ph.D., a licensed clinical professional counselor, on May 21 and 30, 2019.

In a June 30, 2019 e-mail, the employing establishment responded to OWCP’s 

development letter. It noted that appellant was able to perform her required duties. It indicated 

that there were no witness statements or additional supporting documents.

By decision dated July 8, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that, while she 

had established that the May 15, 2019 incident occurred in the performance of duty, as alleged, 

she had not submitted medical evidence diagnosing a medical condition in connection with the 

accepted incident. As such, it concluded that appellant had not established the medical component 

of fact of injury.
3

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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period 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, 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 

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

the diagnosed emotional condition.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual 

and medical background of the claimant, must be 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 incident identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish a diagnosed 

emotional condition causally related to the accepted May 15, 2019 employment incident.

Appellant alleged that she developed an emotional condition, experiencing anxiety and 

stress after being caught in the middle of a shooting while delivering mail in the performance of 

duty. OWCP accepted that the May 15, 2019 employment incident occurred, as alleged, in the 

 

3 Supra note 1.

4 R.S., Docket No. 19-1484 (issued January 13, 2020); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

5 L.L., Docket No. 19-1106 (issued October 18, 2019); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 20 C.F.R. § 10.115; M.S., Docket No. 19-1096 (issued November 12, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued 

February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

7 M.K., Docket No. 19-0498 (issued October 3, 2019); J.N., Docket No. 19-0215 (issued July 15, 2019); George H. 

Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004).

8

J.D., Docket No. 19-0382 (issued January 3, 2020); Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

9 M.H., Docket No. 18-0873 (issued December 18, 2019); Leslie C. Moore, 52 ECAB 132 (2000).
4

performance of duty. However, it noted that appellant failed to establish a diagnosed medical 

condition causally related to the accepted incident. 

Appellant submitted two documents that showed she saw Dr. Kirkland on May 21 and 

30, 2019. The reports from Dr. Kirkland do not constitute competent medical evidence. 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 However, there is no evidence that Dr. Kirkland, a licensed 

counselor, is a licensed clinical psychologist, which would qualify her as a “physician” as defined 

by FECA.11 Accordingly, as appellant has not submitted medical evidence diagnosing an 

emotional condition in connection with the accepted employment incident, the Board finds that 

she has not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.12

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 a diagnosed 

medical condition causally related to the accepted May 15, 2019 employment incident.

 

10 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2).

11 T.M., Docket No. 17-1525 (issued January 10, 2018). The Board also notes that these documents did not contain 

a diagnosis. 

12 See L.L., supra note 5.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 8, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 18, 2020

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board