United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, COLLEGE STATION 

POST OFFICE, College Station, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0463

Issued: April 28, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On February 2, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 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 his burden of proof to establish that he sustained an 

emotional/stress-related condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On September 24, 2018 appellant, then a 46-year-old postmaster, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that stress from his work caused him to develop kidney failure 

in 2016 and to suffer a minor stroke in September 2018. He noted that he first became aware of 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

his claimed condition on December 1, 2016, and first realized its relation to his federal 

employment on September 21, 2018. Appellant did not stop work.

In a September 21, 2018 e-mail to T.I., Manager Post Office Operations and appellant’s 

immediate supervisor, appellant asserted that he noticed that stress from his work at the employing 

establishment began to affect his health “on or about November [or] December 2015 [to] 

January 2016.” He indicated that appellant requested to be placed in a downgraded position in 

late-2015 or early-2016 due to his failing health and advised that the request was granted effective 

February 6, 2016. Appellant alleged that he was informed on September 20, 2018 that he had 

suffered a “[b]rain [s]troke due to stress.”

In an October 3, 2018 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of 

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

questionnaire for his completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested 

that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding 

appellant’s allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond. 

Appellant thereafter submitted an October 11, 2018 statement wherein he advised that he 

worked as the postmaster at the employing establishment and formerly worked as the postmaster 

at a different facility from 2013 to 2016. He asserted that his starting work at the current employing 

establishment post office on February 6, 2016 was the result of his voluntary request to move to a 

downgraded position due to his declining health. Appellant maintained that M.K., his former 

supervisor at the prior facility, failed to provide him with support, blocked him from hiring staff, 

and forced him to work for two years with only one supervisor. He claimed that M.K. ignored his 

request to repair the trailer behind the main building, thereby forcing employees to work under 

congested conditions at a time when mail volume had increased. Appellant asserted that, after the 

trailer was repaired in 2018, the congested working conditions continued because management

instructed his work unit not to house mail from 14 new delivery routes in the trailer. He maintained 

that management officials, including M.K., subjected him to a hostile work environment by 

berating his work unit’s performance, belittling him on a daily basis, and verbally threatening his 

job on a weekly basis. Appellant asserted that his work unit was understaffed and that he and other 

supervisors were tasked with casing delivery routes and throwing parcels on a daily basis until 

2018 when postal support employees came to the unit. He claimed that management ignored 

repeated requests to increase the staffing of clerk and carrier positions and did not respond after 

he and his staff interviewed over 50 applicants. Appellant asserted that staffing shortages required 

him to perform tasks outside of his supervisory responsibilities, including casing mail routes, 

pitching parcels, cleaning the retail unit, and providing relief for window clerks at lunch time. He

maintained that he had to meet daily, weekly, monthly, and quarterly deadlines without adequate 

staffing.

Appellant alleged that, after his work unit began to process Amazon mail in April 2016, it 

had to process 18 pallets of this mail each day during the regular delivery season and 26 to 34 

pallets during the peak delivery season. He claimed that his work unit was temporarily assigned 

to process Amazon mail on each Sunday during the period October through December 2016,

thereby increasing the processing days from five to six. Appellant asserted that management only 

provided him with one holiday clerk to help with the Amazon mail in December 2016, and he 

found it stressful to work six days per week. He maintained that the staffing shortage continued 

when the processing of Amazon mail on each Sunday became permanent in October 2017 and 
3

that, as a result, some employees had to work for 10 to 15 consecutive days.

2

 Appellant asserted 

that, despite interviewing and selecting more than 53 candidates in 2017 to handle Amazon mail, 

management refused to inform him why his staffing requests were not processed. He also claimed 

that in 2017, management refused to post new mail delivery routes for approximately nine months 

to a year, a circumstance, which prevented him from posting new jobs and thereby exacerbated the 

staffing problem. Appellant further asserted that, beginning in early-2016, there was only a single 

contract custodian who disposed of trash for two hours per day, and management ignored his

request to hire a full-time custodian to care for the workplace’s three buildings. He indicated that 

three part-time custodians were hired in June 2018, such that each of the three buildings received 

two hours of custodian attention per day, but the workplace remained dirty and poorly maintained.

Appellant also alleged that other employing establishment offices, which were smaller than 

his, were allowed to hire full-time custodians and postal support employees. He claimed that after 

he interviewed a particular job candidate, W.G., a maintenance manager, engaged in retaliation 

when he “pulled the job from the system” and prevented the hiring from occurring. Appellant

alleged that W.G. and B.M, another maintenance manager, delayed the processing of his requests 

to have repairs done to his work unit, which resulted in a one-year wait to have a new air 

conditioning system installed. He indicated that the lack of an adequate air conditioning system 

created an unpleasant work environment and caused his staff to become disgruntled. Appellant 

claimed that egress violations occurred when the plant transportation department refused to clear 

empty equipment from the loading dock for months at a time, thereby creating safety problems 

and slowing down the processing of mail. He asserted that, in addition to managing three work 

units, he carried out work tasks as a dispute resolution backup team member, Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) step-2 designee, overtime administration subject matter expert, finance subject 

matter expert, and mass interviewer for the district.

Appellant submitted numerous e-mails, dated March 3, 2016 through September 24, 2018,

in which he discussed various matters with management officials, including the posting of 

announcements for job vacancies and other staffing issues, the handling of workload requirements, 

and the maintenance, space, and equipment needs of the work unit. He also submitted healthcare 

provider reports from September 2018, including reports of Stephanie Barker-Trejo, a physician 

assistant, who discussed the treatment of his ischemic stroke.

In an October 12, 2018 statement, T.I. indicated that he did not concur with appellant’s 

claim that he sustained an emotional condition “related to exposure on the job.” He noted that

appellant had complained about his working relationship with M.K. and accepted a downgrade to 

work at the current employing establishment post office. T.I. indicated that for the prior nine 

months he had not noticed any problems with appellant’s work performance. He acknowledged 

that the current employing establishment post office had experienced growth and space constraints, 

and noted that it was a difficult process to request a new facility space. T.I. indicated that the space 

problems appellant encountered were problems that all postmasters addressed. He advised that a 

trailer, which appellant had complained about had recently been repaired, and noted that

appellant’s sending of messages regarding the matter was part of his duties. T.I. advised that the 

posting of mail delivery routes involved the correct completion of forms and then following up, 

and maintained that appellant did not complete this job task as quickly as possible. He noted that 

2 Appellant claimed that he was unfairly reprimanded when employees had to work for more than seven consecutive 

days.
4

appellant was responsible for handling paperwork related to making mail delivery route cuts. T.I. 

advised that a maintenance employee was not hired as requested by appellant as this work was 

handled by a private company. He acknowledged that this private company initially failed to 

complete the contract as required because of poor communication, but that eventually sufficient 

custodial cleaning was carried out. T.I. noted that staffing issues were a continuing problem, as 

stated by appellant, but he asserted that such issues were not unique to that employing 

establishment post office. He indicated that the turnover of mail carriers at appellant’s workplace 

was high and that finding reliable replacement employees was difficult. T.I. indicated that 

appellant was responsible for replacing employees and should constantly be in a hiring posture. 

He indicated that the hiring of clerk staff was a separate process from the hiring of mail carriers 

and advised that this created special constraints for postmasters such as appellant. T.I. 

acknowledged that handling the growth of Amazon mail, including the need to work on Sundays, 

was part of appellant’s supervisory responsibilities and did, in fact, create staffing issues. He 

indicated that all offices, including appellant’s office, had difficulty hiring and keeping employees 

who worked with Amazon mail. T.I. noted that work area maintenance was “spread thin” and that 

postmasters such as appellant sometimes had to involve their superiors to address such problems. 

He indicated that, a few times per month, equipment was not taken out the workplace by the 

transportation management department. T.I. concluded that the employing establishment was 

controverting appellant’s claim because the issues he dealt with were “not out of the ordinary.”

By decision dated February 27, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease

claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a compensable employment 

factor and, therefore, did not establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty. 

On March 14, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. After a preliminary review, by decision dated June 7, 2019, 

OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the February 27, 2019 decision and remanded the case 

to OWCP for further development. 

By de novo decision dated August 22, 2019, OWCP again denied appellant’s occupational 

disease claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a compensable 

employment factor. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish 

an injury as defined by FECA. 

On September 13, 2019 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. After a preliminary review, by decision dated 

December 2, 2019, OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the August 22, 2019 decision and 

remanded the case to OWCP for further development. The hearing representative found that 

OWCP had not considered all of appellant’s claimed employment factors. 

On December 5 and 31, 2019 OWCP received copies of e-mails, which had previously 

been of record.

By de novo decision dated January 16, 2020, OWCP again denied appellant’s claim,

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a compensable employment factor. 

It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA.
5

On January 28, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. After a preliminary review, by decision dated April 22, 

2020, OWCP’s hearing representative to set aside the January 16, 2020 decision and remanded the 

case to OWCP for further development. The hearing representative found that OWCP had not 

adequately evaluated all the relevant factual evidence of record.

By de novo decision dated June 8, 2020, OWCP again denied appellant’s claim, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a compensable employment factor and, 

therefore, did not establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

On June 21, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review. After a preliminary review, by decision dated September 4, 2020, 

OWCP’s hearing representative set aside the June 8, 2020 decision and remanded the case to 

OWCP for further development. The hearing representative found that OWCP had not adequately 

considered all of appellant’s allegations.

By de novo decision dated January 4, 2021, OWCP again denied appellant’s emotional 

condition claim, finding that he failed to establish a compensable employment factor. It concluded, 

therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

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. There are situations where an injury or an illness 

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 April 10, 2019); see T.O., Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

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

6 See 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).
6

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

coverage of workers’ compensation. Where a condition results from an employee’s emotional 

reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the 

employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.7 On the other hand, a condition 

is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force or 

his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment, or to hold a 

particular position.8

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 factors of employment and may 

not be considered.9 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, OWCP should then 

determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor. When the matter asserted is a 

compensable factor of employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter 

asserted, it must base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.10

Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to 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.11 However, the Board has held that, where the 

evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment in what would 

otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.12 In determining whether the 

employing establishment has erred or acted abusively, the Board will examine the factual evidence 

of record to determine whether the employing establishment acted reasonably.13

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.14 

Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.15 A claimant

must substantiate allegations of harassment or discrimination with probative and reliable 

7 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

8 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

9 See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992).

10 Id.

11 See J.W., Docket No. 17-0999 (issued September 4, 2018); Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. 

McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

12 See J.W., id.; William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

13 J.W., id.; Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).

14 M.V., Docket No. 22-0227 (issued March 28, 2023); O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); K.W., 

59 ECAB 271 (2007); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006).

15 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007); Robert G. Burns, 57 ECAB 

657 (2006).
7

evidence.16 Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not determinative of 

whether such harassment or discrimination occurred.17

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused or 

adversely affected by employment factors.18 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions which he or she believes caused or adversely 

affected a condition for which compensation is claimed, and a rationalized medical opinion 

relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.19

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant has alleged that he sustained an emotional condition as a result of a number of 

incidents and conditions at his workplace. The Board must, therefore, initially review whether 

appellant’s allegations establish compensable employment factors under the terms of FECA.20 The 

Board notes that appellant’s allegations ostensibly relate to his regular or specially assigned duties 

under Lillian Cutler,

21 as well as to claimed management wrongdoing with respect to

administrative matters and harassment/discrimination. 

The Board finds that appellant has established several employment factors, which relate to 

his work duties. Appellant has established that his job required him to address problems with 

hiring and maintaining adequate staff; removing equipment from workspaces; securing adequate 

areas to carry out work functions; managing paperwork for posting and cutting mail delivery 

routes; keeping workspaces in safe, clean, and comfortable physical condition; and addressing high 

work volume and deadlines, particularly with regard to handling Amazon mail. These allegations

are supported by the factual evidence of record and constitute compensable employment factors 

as contemplated by Cutler.

22

In addition, with respect to administrative or personnel matters, appellant claimed that 

management officials committed error or abuse with respect to such matters as management of 

staffing, maintenance of safe, clean, and comfortable work facilities, management of work

assignments, and handling of hiring processes. The Board has held that administrative and 

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

16 J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008); Robert Breeden, supra note 14.

17 R.D., Docket No. 21-0050 (issued February 25, 2022); T.Y., Docket No. 19-0654 (issued November 5, 2019);

G.S., Docket No. 09-0764 (issued December 18, 2009); Ronald K. Jablanski, 56 ECAB 616 (2005); Penelope C. 

Owens, 54 ECAB 684 (2003).

18 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838, 841 (1987).

19 P.B., Docket No. 17-1912 (issued December 28, 2018); Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993).

20 Y.W., Docket No. 19-1877 (issued April 30, 2020); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

21 See Lillian Cutler, supra note 7.

22 Id.
8

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

and are not covered under FECA.23 However, the Board has also held that, where the evidence 

establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment in what would otherwise be 

an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded.24 In determining whether the employing 

establishment has erred or acted abusively, the Board will examine the factual evidence of record 

to determine whether the employing establishment acted reasonably.25

The Board finds that appellant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish the abovenoted claims about administrative/personnel matters. Appellant submitted e-mails and 

memoranda, which concerned some of these administrative/personnel matters, but the 

communications did not show that the employing establishment committed error or abuse with 

respect to these matters. There is no indication that he obtained a final determination from an 

administrative body showing that the employing establishment committed error or abuse.26 

Although appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of several superiors, the Board has 

held that mere dislike or disagreement with certain supervisory actions will not be compensable 

absent error or abuse on the part of the supervisor.27 He has not substantiated error or abuse 

committed by the employing establishment in the above-noted matters and, therefore, he has not 

established a compensable employment factor with respect to administrative or personnel matters.

Appellant also alleged that he was subjected to harassment and discrimination by superiors. 

In particular, he claimed that he was subjected to verbal abuse, that his work was discriminatorily 

scrutinized, that he was subjected to unfair discipline, and that his job was threatened on a regular 

basis. However, appellant did not submit corroborative evidence in support of his allegations 

regarding these matters. He did not submit witness statements or other documentary evidence 

demonstrating that the alleged harassment and discrimination occurred as alleged.28 Appellant did 

not submit the final findings of any complaint or grievance he might have filed with respect to 

these matters, such as an EEO complaint or a grievance filed with the employing establishment.29 

To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment or discrimination are 

established as occurring and arising from an employee’s performance of his or her regular duties, 

these could constitute employment factors.30 The Board has held that unfounded perceptions of 

harassment or discrimination do not constitute an employment factor.31 Mere perceptions are not 

23 T.L., Docket No. 18-0100 (issued June 20, 2019); Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 

supra note 13.

24 M.S., Docket No. 19-1589 (issued October 7, 2020); William H. Fortner, supra note 12.

25 J.W., Docket No. 17-0999 (issued September 4, 2018); Ruth S. Johnson, supra note 13.

26 See M.R., Docket No. 18-0304 (issued November 13, 2018). 

27 T.C., Docket No. 16-0755 (issued December 13, 2016).

28 See B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2018).

29 See generally L.C., Docket No. 20-0461 (issued June 2, 2021); see also C.T., Docket No. 08-2160 (issued 

May 7, 2009).

30 D.B., Docket No. 18-1025 (issued January 23, 2019); David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991).

31 See F.K., Docket No. 17-0179 (issued July 11, 2017).
9

compensable under FECA and harassment or discrimination can constitute a factor of employment 

if it is shown that the incidents constituting the claimed harassment/discrimination actually 

occurred.32 The Board finds, for the reasons discussed above, that appellant has not established a 

compensable employment factor with respect to the claimed harassment and discrimination.

In the present case, appellant has established compensable factors of employment with 

respect to his work duties, as described above. However, his burden of proof is not discharged by 

the fact that he has established employment factors which may give rise to a compensable disability 

under FECA. To establish his occupational disease claim for an emotional/stress-related condition, 

appellant must also submit rationalized medical evidence by a qualified physician and/or clinical 

psychologist establishing that he has a diagnosed condition causally related to an accepted 

compensable employment factor.33

As OWCP found that there were no compensable employment factors, the case must be 

remanded for an evaluation of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal relationship.34 

Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, it shall issue a de novo

decision regarding appellant’s emotional/stress-related condition claim.

CONCLUSION

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

32 See id.

33 See supra note 6.

34 See M.D., Docket No. 15-1796 (issued September 7, 2016).
10

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 4, 2021 decision of the Office of 

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

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: April 28, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board