United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

X.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VA

CONNECTICUT HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, 

West Haven, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0045

Issued: April 14, 2023

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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On October 4, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a May 10, 2021 merit decision 

and a September 10, 2021 nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the appeal Docket No. 22-0045. 

On March 29, 2021 appellant, then a 57-year-old nurse, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained work-related stress and mental abuse, which aggravated 

her preexisting depression, anxiety, nightmares, loss of sleep, and post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD). She noted that she first became aware of her condition on July 15, 2019 and realized its 

relation to her federal employment on September 5, 2019. Appellant stopped work on

March 26, 2021.

1

 

OWCP received a September 11, 2020 notice of change in patient care assignment from 

the employing establishment which indicated that, due to safety concerns, appellant would cease 

providing direct patient care.

1 The employing establishment indicated that her employment was terminated effective March 26, 2021. 
2

In a detailed March 4, 2021 statement, appellant referred to 20 separate patient cases and 

discussed issues and problems she had been confronted with in handling each case.

In a March 24, 2021 notice of separation during probation, A.M., the employing 

establishment director, revealed that a recommendation was made to separate appellant effective 

March 26, 2021. 

In an April 22, 2021 response, T.C., the chief nurse of specialty care, noted that no agency 

employees reported witnessing abuse of appellant. She noted that appellant’s position required 

her to provide care to complex oncology patients and work with other providers and staff in a highstress work environment. T.C. explained that appellant lacked experience in hematology/oncology

and was given a slow transition with her volume of patient assignments and offered oncology 

courses and biotherapy and chemotherapy training. She provided duties of the position and 

indicated that she was unaware of any duties of appellant that differed from the official position 

description. T.C. noted that there were no staffing shortages that affected appellant’s workload 

that would subject her to extra demands. She explained that the section chief of 

hematology/oncology reported that appellant’s performance did not meet expectations and that her 

clinical skills in the management and care of patients in hematology/oncology were marginal.

By decision dated May 10, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not 

established any compensable factors of employment. It specifically noted that she did not provide 

any further statement or factual evidence as to how her federal employment contributed to her 

condition.

On June 15, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

OWCP received a position description, appellant’s resume; a copy of appellant’s prior 

statement; appellant’s letter of resignation; a November 28, 2008 letter of recommendation for 

appellant from urgent care; a letter of recommendation for appellant from a medical provider;

newspaper articles pertaining to a family clinic owned by appellant; documentation related to

appellant’s certification as a nurse practitioner; and a handwritten list of appellant’s current 

treatment and medication regimen. It also received a statement from appellant alleging that she 

was singled out, mistreated, discriminated against, and abused at work. 

In a letter dated June 28, 2021, the employing establishment again controverted appellant’s 

claim.

By decision dated September 10, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s request for 

reconsideration of the merits of her claim. 

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

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 claim.2 The 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.
3

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

In an emotional condition claim, 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

Appellant submitted a number of documents related to her claim as well as a March 4, 2021 

detailed statement outlining 20 specific patient care cases which she alleged were difficult to 

handle and contributed to her emotional condition. The employing establishment submitted a 

response which included an April 22, 2021 memorandum addressing appellant’s allegations. The 

Board finds that OWCP denied the claim by listing the documentation submitted and noting that 

each document was administrative in nature. OWCP summarily denied the claim, finding that 

appellant had not established an emotional condition, without explaining why the specific incidents 

she alleged were substantiated or compensable. Thus, the Board finds that OWCP in its May 10, 

2021 merit 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 remand OWCP shall make findings of fact as to whether the evidence of record 

establishes that any of the alleged incidents 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

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 supra note 3 at 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 (issued June 27, 2012).

7 A.R., Docket No. 11-1949 (issued April 16, 2012).

8

In light of the Board disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot.
4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 10 and September 10, 2021 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are set aside and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this order of the Board.

Issued: April 14, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board