United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.F., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, JEFFERSON 

NATIONAL EXPANSION MEMORIAL, 

St. Louis, MO, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0277

Issued: August 4, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 21, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 25, 2022 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 to consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board on appeal.2 The facts and circumstances 

as set forth in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts 

are as follows.

On February 20, 2020 appellant, then a 53-year-old maintenance mechanic, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a cerebral vascular accident 

(CVA) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) due to factors of his federal employment, including 

harassment and discrimination. He explained that he eventually had to take two and a half months 

of leave from work due to stress, which he alleged caused him to suffer a stroke while at work on 

February 13, 2020. Appellant indicated that he first became aware of his condition on 

February 13, 2020, and first realized its relation to factors of his federal employment on 

February 14, 2020. On the reverse side of the claim form the employing establishment noted that 

“all findings have come back unsubstantiated.” Appellant stopped work on February 13, 2020.

In a development letter dated March 10, 2020, OWCP advised appellant of the factual and 

medical evidence necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. 

It afforded 30 days for a response.

Appellant provided a series of statements alleging a hostile work environment at his 

workplace. He asserted that on September 10, 2018 a coworker referred to Muslims as “rag 

heads,” and on September 17, 2018 two coworkers referred to appellant as “other” or “boy.” On 

September 20, 2018 coworkers prevented appellant from correctly completing his training. 

Appellant reported the failure of coworkers to demonstrate procedures for him to his supervisor 

on October 9 and November 13, 2018. On November 16, 2018 a coworker informed him that he 

needed to “return to the railroad,” as he was not wanted at the employing establishment. Another

coworker yelled at and threatened appellant on December 10, 2018. 

On February 13, 2019 appellantinformed coworkers P.D. and M.H. that he was not “taking 

the bull they were bringing.” He alleged that he was harassed and belittled by coworkers, that he 

had experienced verbal abuse, and that the stress of his work situation had caused complications 

with his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Appellant used leave due to stress from February

through May 2019.

On March 29, 2019 appellant filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In a May 21, 2019 statement, appellant alleged that his supervisor K.L. was ignoring him 

and separating him from his coworkers, and that he was trying to push him into becoming angry. 

He also asserted that his coworkers were attempting to gather information to use against him 

through J.W., another coworker, but that he had provided him with false information.

Appellant alleged retaliation by his supervisor, K.L., and his coworkers in a statement dated 

June 25, 2019. He asserted that K.L transferred him against his will, that his coworkers ignored

him, that K.L. changed his work assignments without a valid work-related rationale, that he was 

improperly disciplined, that his performance appraisal did not reflect his work performance, that 

2 Docket No. 20-1635 (issued June 9, 2022).
3

coworkers engaged in verbal or physical abuse, and that he was threatened with invalid reports. 

Appellant further alleged that B.M. informed him that he did not like him.

In a statement dated July 21, 2019, appellant reported that he sustained an injury on July 5, 

2019 when B.M. refused to work with him to help to complete an assigned task. He attempted the 

task alone and fell off of a ladder on to a work bench, and then the floor.

Appellant completed a statement dated September 6, 2019 alleging that his coworkers were 

not communicating with him due to his EEOC complaint. He noted that during a meeting on 

September 4, 2019, as he was apologizing, a coworker, M.H., asserted that he was taking 

advantage of his veteran’s disability, and that he would never talk or work with him. Another 

coworker, P.D.refused to talk or work with appellant on advice of counsel. Following the meeting,

appellant was stressed and angry.

In a September 24, 2019 statement, appellant alleged that he and a coworker, B.M., had a 

disagreement while working and had argued about whether there was lead paint at the base of a 

pump. He asked a question after the end of the argument, and B.M. threw a sharp five-inch scraper 

at him. Appellant chastised him for throwing tools, but felt scared, intimidated, and threatened by 

B.M. He reported these events to his supervisors. Appellant alleged that he was experiencing 

anger, harassment, intimidating, and threatening behavior from his coworkers. He further alleged 

that B.M. informed him that everyone in the department hated him and that during a meeting 

coworkers indicated that they refused to work with him.

On January 31, 2020 appellant alleged that he was subjected to a verbal assault on 

January 31, 2020 and that an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violation 

had occurred as he did not receive a job briefing for that day’s tasks. He asserted that B.M. verbally 

abused him by yelling using profanity, and belittling him.

In a February 3, 2020 statement, appellant alleged OSHA violations when a coworker 

jumped from the tram when the system was energized. He reported this to his supervisor.

Appellant provided a February 10, 2020 statement regarding the events of September 6, 

and 24, 2019 recounted that on September 6, 2019 his coworkers had explained that they were not 

going to work with him, and that they had not. He asserted that his coworkers talked about his 

disability, did not like him, and did not want to work with him. Appellant believed that they were 

waiting for him to make a mistake. He further alleged that his supervisor had supported his 

coworkers which created a messy, unprofessional, and hostile environment.

On March 1, 2020 appellant filed an administrative grievance regarding a written 

reprimand and asserted that he had not yelled at a coworker. He alleged that the written reprimand 

was harassment and retaliation and that he had experienced extreme stress at the employing 

establishment.

In a March 9, 2020 statement, appellant described a series of work incidents. On 

February 14, 2019 he was informed that a coworker was filing a hostile work environment claim 

against him, which he alleged included false allegations. Appellant did not work on February 19, 

2019 and reported to a supervisor that he was experiencing a hostile work environment. On 

February 20, 2019 his coworkers refused to speak with him, there was heavy tension in the 

department, and he believed they were angry with him. On March 7, 2019 appellant informed a 

coworker that he was not angry with him, but that coworker informed him that he did not want to 
4

talk with him. He alleged that, on February 13, 2020, due to stress, he felt ill while on duty and 

developed symptoms of a light stroke. Appellant denied any prior history of smoking or heart 

problems. 

On March 11, 2020 Dr. John Scally, a Board-certified cardiologist, indicated that appellant 

was under his care for TIA, sleep apnea, and hyperlipidemia. He recommended that he keep his 

stress levels and physical demand low with respect to his job. Dr. Scally noted that appellant’s 

current job duties required physical demands and were high stress and recommended that he take 

on a less physically demanding and less stressful position if possible.

In a March 12, 2020 note, Dr. Perris J. Monrow, a Board-certified psychologist, recounted 

appellant’s treatment beginning June 2018 due to severe PTSD, which he developed during his 

time serving active duty in the United States Army from 1985 to 1990. He opined that appellant 

had been suffering from severe work-related stress since 2019 andthat the recent stroke he suffered 

was more likely than not caused by his work-related stress further aggravating his PTSD. 

On March 16, 2020 appellant respond to OWCP’s questionnaire and asserted that the 

instances that led to his condition amounted to EEOC and OSHA violations, as well as instances 

of physical and verbal assault.

By decision dated August 31, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he had 

not established any compensable factors of employment. Thus, it concluded that the requirements 

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

Appellant appealed OWCP’s August 31, 2020 decision to the Board. In a June 9, 2022 

decision, the Board set aside OWCP’s decision and found that the case was not in posture for a 

decision as OWCP had failed to comply with its procedures and failed to request that the 

employing establishment respond to appellant’s allegations and provide relevant evidence 

regarding his allegations of harassment, discrimination, verbal abuse and hostile work 

environment. The Board remanded the case for further development, to be followed by a de novo

decision.

Beginning on December 23, 2020 appellant provided additional evidence. C.B., the 

employing establishment safety officer, provided a safety statement regarding appellant’s July 5, 

2019 fall and asserted that he had not alleged an injury, that the ladder was undamaged and stable, 

and suggested that the area should be cleaned for better ladder placement to avoid awkward 

positioning. 

In a June 13, 2022 development letter, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

provide statements and copies of any additional documents, video evidence, and all investigations 

regarding appellant’s allegations. It afforded 30 days for a response.

On June 23, 2022 the employing establishment filed a November 2, 2020 motion for 

summary judgment before the EEOC asserting that appellant had not established EEOC’s legal 

standard of a hostile work environment. This document referenced testimony from B.M., multiple 

witnesses to the February 13, 2019 verbal argument between appellant, M.H., and P.D., and the 

actions of appellant’s supervisor K.L.

By decision dated August 25, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim 

finding that he had not met the requirements to establish an emotional condition in the performance 
5

of duty because he did not establish that the condition arose during the course of employment and 

within the scope of compensable employment factors. It explained that the evidence did not 

establish that he was the subject of harassment or discrimination by coworkers.

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 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.4 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. 5

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.6

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment. In the case of Lillian Cutler,

7

the Board explained 

that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a compensable 

emotional condition arising under FECA.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 

of workers’ compensation.9 When an employee experiences emotional stress in carrying out his 

or her employment duties and the medical evidence establishes that the disability resulted from an 

emotional reaction to such situation, the disability is generally regarded as due to an injury arising 

out of and in the course of employment. This is true when the employee’s disability results from 

his or her emotional reaction to a special assignment or other requirement imposed by the 

employing establishment or by the nature of the work.10

3

Supra note 1.

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

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K.,Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); see T.O.,Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

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

6

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).

7

28 ECAB 125 (1976).

8

5 U.S.C. § § 8101-8193.

9 G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018). Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 136 (1999).

10 Supra note 1.
6

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

condition claim.11 Where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he or she must 

substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence. 12 Personal perceptions alone 

are insufficient to establish an employment-related emotional condition.13 A disabling condition 

resulting from an employee’s feelings of job insecurity per se is not sufficient to constitute a 

person’sinjury sustained in the performance of duty within the meaning of FECA. Thus, disability 

is not covered when it results from an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force. Nor is disability 

covered when it results from such factors as an employee’s frustration in not being permitted to 

work in a particular environment or to hold a particular position. 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 A claimant must support his or her allegations with probative and reliable 

evidence.

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, 

there must be probative and reliable evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur.17 

Mere perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA. 18 A claimantmust substantiate 

allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable evidence. 19 

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

harassment or discrimination occurred.20

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 compensable factors 

11 B.O., Docket No. 17-1986 (issued January 18, 2019).

12 Id.

13 M.R., Docket No. 18-0305 (issued October 18, 2018).

14 Supra note 9.

15 Charles D. Edwards, 55 ECAB 258 (2004).

16 Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001). Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 

566 (1991).

17 S.B., Docket No. 18-1113 (issued February 21, 2019).

18 Id.

19 See S.G., Docket No. 22-0495 (issued November 4, 2022); J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 

622 (2006).

20 S.G., id.; T.Y., Docket No. 19-0654 (issued November 5, 2019); G.S.,Docket No. 09-0764 (issued December 18, 

2009); Ronald K. Jablonski, 56 ECAB 616 (2005); Penelope C. Owens, 54 ECAB 684 (2003).
7

of employment and may not be considered.21 If an employee does implicate a factor of 

employment, OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that 

factor. 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

OWCP’s regulations provide that an employing establishment who has reason to disagree 

with an aspect of the claimant’s allegation should submit a statement that specifically describes 

the factual argument with which it disagrees and provide evidence or argument to support that 

position.23 Its procedures further provide in certain types of claims, such as a stress claim, a 

statement from the employing establishment is imperative to properly develop and adjudicate the 

claim.24

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant attributed his condition, in part, to verbal disagreements with coworkers and 

actions of his supervisor resulting in harassment and discrimination, and a hostile work 

environment.

OWCP, in a development letter dated June 13, 2022, requested that the employing 

establishment provide statements and copies of any additional documents, video evidence, and all 

investigations regarding appellant’s allegations. The employing establishment did not respond 

fully to this request. It merely provided its summary judgment motion in appellant’s EEOC claim. 

The employing establishment did not provide documents, witness statements, or comments from 

a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of appellant’s allegationsincluding harassment 

and discrimination.

25

The Board finds that it is unable to make an informed decision in this case as the employing 

establishment did not adequately respond to OWCP’s request for information.26 As discussed, 

OWCP’s procedures provide that, in emotional condition cases, a statement from the employing 

establishment is necessary to adequately adjudicate the claim. 27

21 S.G., supra note 19; B.S.,Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

22 S.G., supra note 19; O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August7, 2019); NormaL. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-

90 (1992).

23 20 C.F.R. § 10.117(a); S.G., supra note 19; D.L., Docket No. 15-0547 (issued May 2, 2016).

24 Federal (FECA) Procedural Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Initial Development of Claims, Chapter 2.800.7a(2) 

(June 2011).

25 See L.G., Docket No. 21-0690 (issued December 9, 2021); D.C., Docket No. 21-0231 (issued August 27, 2021); 

A.O., Docket No. 19-1612 (issued April 8, 2021); C.K., Docket No. 20-1493 (issued March 29, 2021).

26 J.R., Docket No. 20-1382 (issued December 30, 2022); G.I., Docket No. 19-0942 (issued February 4, 2020); 

V.H., Docket No. 18-0273 (issued July 27, 2018).

27 Supra note 24.
8

Although it is a claimant’s burden of proof to establish his claim, OWCP is not a 

disinterested arbiter, but rather, shares responsibility in the development of the evidence, 

particularly when such evidence is of the character normally obtained from the employing 

establishment.28 

The case will accordingly be remanded for OWCP to further develop the evidence. On 

remand, OWCP shall request that in addition to the information previously requested, the 

employing establishment provide testimony and other documents associated with appellant’s 

EEOC claim, a detailed statement from a knowledgeable supervisor, and any other relevant 

evidence and/or argument regarding appellant’s allegations. OWCP’s procedures provide that, if 

an employing establishment fails to respond to a request for comments on a claimant’s allegations, 

OWCP’s claims examiner may accept the claimant’s statements as factual.29 Following this and 

any necessary further development, it shall issue a de novo decision regarding whether he has 

established an emotional condition in the performance of duty.

CONCLUSION

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

28 See A.O., supra note 25; S.L., Docket No. 19-0387(issued October 1, 2019); R.A.,Docket No. 17-1030 (issued 

April 16, 2018); K.W., Docket No. 15-1535 (issued September 23, 2016).

29 O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007).
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 25, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: August 4, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board