United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.G., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Chatham, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0259

Issued: January 5, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 9, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 21, 2021 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 25, 20212 appellant, then a 51-year-old rural carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due 

to factors of her federal employment, including, ongoing harassment by a coworker, V.B. She 

noted that she first became aware of her condition and realized its relation to her federal 

employment on March 2, 2021. Appellant stopped work on March 2, 2021.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted a February 28, 2021 counseling note by Amy 

Jennings, a licensed clinical social worker, who indicated that appellant related that V.B. had been 

attacking her on a regular basis for the past two years, including cussing, glaring, and threatening 

her, throwing items, slamming doors, and speeding away in vehicles. She indicated that she did 

not feel safe in the workplace and experienced symptoms of crying, vomiting, anxiety, poor sleep, 

and nightmares. Ms. Jennings diagnosed PTSD and recommended appellant be provided with a 

work area totally separate from V.B.

In a development letter dated April 8, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of her claim. It advised her of the type of medical and factual evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

OWCP thereafter received a statement by appellant bearing an illegible date, which 

indicated that, while she was walking outside to load her long-life vehicle (LLV), V.B. turned to 

face her, pulled her mask down, and glared at her. Appellant indicated that she felt intimidated 

and this caused her to experience severe anxiety.

In a statement dated October 13, 2020, appellant related that V.B. drove past her while she 

was on her route and made an obscene hand gesture. She also alleged that she observed V.B. 

falsely accuse another coworker, J.J., of getting V.B. into trouble.

In an October 13, 2020 witness statement, J.J. related that, while loading her vehicle next 

to appellant, V.B. approached her and stated, “when I talked to you about the hen house and you 

got me in trouble, that is what I was talking about were chickens.”

In further statements dated October 22, 2020, appellant related that V.B. had walked past 

her case and may have called her a profanity, but she was not certain. She further indicated that 

V.B. stared at her while she walked across the parking area, and that V.B. also accepted an 

invitation to breakfast that was directed at other coworkers. This made appellant feel intimidated, 

so she reported these incidents to a supervisor, who advised that nothing could be done.

On January 16, 2021 appellant related that V.B. walked by her case four times that day and 

gave her intimidating stares, put her hand on her hip and glared at her, and then went to 

2 Appellant subsequently filed a second Form CA-2 on August 13, 2021. She alleged that she developed PTSD due 

to recurring hostile work environment, which led to criminal charges and the issuance of an order of protection on 

August 2, 2021. Appellant noted that she first became aware of her condition and its relation to her federal 

employment on August 2, 2021.
3

management and made false allegations against her. She indicated that she felt unsafe and that 

coworkers N.E. and T.G. witnessed V.B.’s behavior.

In a January 16, 2021 witness statement, T.G. noted thatseveral times, during the morning,

he observed V.B. walking by and glaring at appellant, standing by her case, and trying to instigate 

a reaction from appellant. He related that he felt V.B.’s behavior was not good for the workplace 

environment.

In a separate witness statement dated January 16, 2021, N.E. indicated that he observed 

V.B. get in appellant’s face for no reason and say something to her that he could not understand.

In a grievance form dated January 19, 2021, appellant alleged a hostile work environment 

due to the January 16, 2021 incidents and attached witness statements.

In a statement of even date, appellant alleged that V.B. advised management that she hated

appellant.

In a statement dated January 20, 2021, appellant noted that V.B. slowly walked by her case 

several times that day and stared at her in an intimidating fashion. She related that she attempted 

to move to another location, but that V.B. followed her and kept staring at her, which made her 

feel very unsafe and uncomfortable.

Appellant, in an undated statement, related that she believed her work environment had 

been hostile as early as August 2019 and worsened in January 2020. She noted that she reported 

incidents to management and was told that if another incident occurred, management would take 

action to correct the situation, but management never did. Appellant alleged that she made a 

complaint and a hearing occurred in March 2020. She also noted that she filed a grievance for a 

hostile work environment in September 2020, which was investigated in November 2020 and

resolved with an action plan for her duty station in April 2021. Appellant asserted that she had

anxiety attacks, felt unsafe at work, cried nonstop at home and at work, and that her doctor 

prescribed medication and recommended she change her work environment.

An action plan for appellant’s duty station dated April 1, 2021 outlined steps employees 

should take if they were subjected to threat or assault. It further noted that employees had the right 

to perform their assigned duties in an atmosphere free of threats, assaults, or other acts of 

workplace violence, and that employing establishment management must take all necessary steps

to promptly address all work environment issues as they arise in order to ensure a safe working 

environment.

In a form report dated May 7, 2021, Dr. Christina Scheibler-Ventress, a Board-certified 

family medicine specialist, recommended that appellant remain offwork March 29 through June 1, 

2021 due to PTSD, stress, fearfulness, a hostile work environment, and threats by a fellow 

employee.

In a letter dated August 11, 2021, Dr. Scheibler-Ventress noted that appellant had recently 

returned to work and the harassment was magnified, which had a profound negative effect on 

appellant’s emotional well being. She again recommended that appellant remain off work due to 

PTSD, which she opined was caused solely by the behavior of her coworker.
4

By decision dated September 21, 2021, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she 

had not established any compensable factors of employment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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 a claim for an emotional condition in the performance of duty, an employee 

must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have 

caused or contributed to his or her condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or she has 

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

identified compensable employment factors are causally related to his or her emotional condition. 7 

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment.

8

 In the case of Lillian Cutler,

9

the Board 

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

compensable emotional condition arising under FECA. There are situations where an injury or 

illness has some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within coverage 

of FECA.10 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 

3

Supra note 1.

4 F.H., Docket No. 18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153(1989). 

5 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E.Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

7 R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February 14, 2020).

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

9

28 ECAB 125 (1976).

10 M.R., Docket No. 18-0305 (issued October 18, 2018); Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 136 (1999).
5

emotional reaction to a special assignment or other requirement imposed by the emplo ying 

establishment or by the nature of the work.11

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

there must be evidence which establishes that the acts alleged or implicated by the employee did, 

in fact, occur.12 Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable under 

FECA.13 A claimant must substantiate allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative 

and reliable evidence.14 Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not 

determinative of whether such harassment or discrimination occurred. 15

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 adjud icatory 

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 factors of employment and may 

not be considered.16 

ANALYSIS

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

The Board initially notes that appellant’s allegations do not pertain to her regularly or 

specially assigned duties under Cutler.

17

 Nor do her allegations pertain to error and abuse on the 

part of management with regard to administrative matters.18 Rather, appellant has alleged 

harassment and a hostile work environment.

Appellant submitted a number of statements detailing her interactions with V.B. She 

described multiple incidents in which V.B. intimidated, followed, and harassed her. Appellant

indicated that she felt unsafe and that coworkers N.E. and T.G. witnessed this behavior. Verbal 

altercations and difficult relationships with coworkers, when sufficiently detailed and supported 

11 D.I., Docket No. 19-0534 (issued November 7, 2019); T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019).

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

13 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007); Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 

818, 827 (1991).

14 Supra note 12.

15 T.Y., Docket No. 19-0654 (issued November 5, 2019); G.S., Docket No. 09-0764 (issued December 18, 2009).

16 See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August7, 2019); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992).

17 See R.D., Docket No. 19-0877 (issued September 8, 2020); L.H., Docket No. 18-1217 (issued May 3, 2019); 

Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, supranote 9.

18 Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990); reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).
6

by the record, may constitute compensable factors of employment. 19 In a January 16, 2021 witness 

statement, T.G. noted that several times during the morning, he observed V.B. walking by and 

glaring at appellant, standing by her case, and trying to instigate a reaction from her. He related 

that he felt V.B.’s behavior was not good for the workplace environment. In a separate witness 

statement dated January 16, 2021, N.E. indicated that he observed V.B. get in appellant’s face for 

no reason and say something to her that he could not understand. The Board, therefore, finds that 

appellant has provided reliable and probative evidence regarding V.B. intimidating and following 

her.

20

 Thus, appellant has established a compensable employment factor with respect to these 

allegations of harassment by V.B. 

In denying appellant’s claim, OWCP did not review the medical evidence submitted on the 

issue of an emotional and/or stress-related condition causally related to the accepted compensable 

factor of employment. The Board will, therefore, set aside OWCP’s September 21, 2021 decision 

and remand the case for a review of the medical opinion evidence. After this and other such further 

development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision regarding appellant’s 

emotional condition claim.

CONCLUSION

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

19 J.M., Docket No. 16-0717 (issued January 12, 2017); L.M., Docket No. 13-0267 (issued November 15, 2013).

20 Id.
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 21, 2021 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: January 5, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board