United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WEST SIDE ANNEX 

POST OFFICE, Dubuque, IA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0213

Issued: December 14, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Kevin Card, for the appellant1

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 November 30, 2022 appellant, through her representative, filed a timely appeal from 

September 23 and November 1, 2022 merit decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20

C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

3

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 The Board notes that,following the November 1, 2022 merit decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

ISSUE

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

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 14, 2022 appellant, then a 47-year-old city delivery specialist, filed a 

traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on January 24, 2022 she developed mental 

anguish, major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 

while in the performance of duty. She alleged thatshe was harassed via text message regarding 

her work performance while on her route and then singled-out and humiliated by her supervisor, 

L.C., in front of her coworkers, who she claimed yelled at her to leave work if she had clocked 

out. On the reverse side of the claim form, A.E., an employing establishment supervisor, indicated 

that his knowledge of the facts about the injury did not agree with statements by the employee, 

noting that appellant was held to the same jobs standards as other employees. Appellant did not 

stop work.

In an undated witness statement, D.O., appellant’s coworker, indicated that, on the evening 

of January 24, 2022, he unloaded his work vehicle and walked into the employing establishment 

toward the time clock and past appellant’s case. He noted that she was upset about an interaction 

that she considered hostile that had occurred between herself and another carrier earlier that day. 

D.O. indicated that L.C. then approached them and instructed them to complete their work and 

clock out. He heard appellant say to L.C. that she had already clocked out, and L.C. replied that 

she should “leave and go home if [appellant] was already off the clock.” D.O. noted that there 

were other employees present talking amongst themselves. He further indicated that, as appellant 

was walking out, he heard her say in the direction of L.C. that she was not going to put up with 

this kind of harassment. 

In an undated statement, L.C. related that, on January 24, 2022 after 8:00 p.m., she saw a 

group of carriers standing around appellant’s case. She indicated thatshe told them all that it was 

late and that she would like to go home, so she requested that they finish up, and clock out. 

Appellant responded that she was off the clock. L.C. indicated that she then asked appellant to 

please stop casing the mail, as she was not allowed to work while off the clock. Appellant threw 

the letters she had in her hand in the case and stated “Oh, am I not allowed to grab my bag? You 

won’t let me get my bag? It’s none of your business what I’m doing. How is it your business?” 

L.C. responded that “I’m a supervisor and what happens in this office is my business. I just asked 

you to finish up and grab your things.” She indicated that appellant responded “OOOooohhh 

you’re a supervisor!” while waving her arms in the air. L.C. related that she used the restroom 

and, when she returned, appellant was looking in her direction, so she asked if appellant needed

something from her. Appellant responded that she was putting on lip balm and there was nothing 

for L.C. to see. L.C. walked past her and thought she heard appellant say something else, so she 

turned around and asked if appellant was saying something to her. Appellant then yelled , “No 

harassment going on here! Nope! None at all!” L.C. returned to her desk and, by the time she 

turned around, appellant had already left the office. 

In a grievance dated February 8, 2022, appellant claimed that on January 24, 2022 she 

asked L.C. whether she had told a coworker to stay away from appellant, because she was “nothing 
3

but trouble.” She noted that another carrier was present to witness the conversation and that L.C. 

denied this allegation. Later, when she started her route for the day, appellant received multiple 

scanner messages from L.C., who asked why she was so far behind on her route. She indicated 

that she asked L.C. to stop messaging her because it was slowing her down. When she returned to 

her work location after completing her route, appellant indicated that L.C. told her to leave if she 

had already clocked out. She felt humiliated and singled-out, as other carriers that were clocked 

out were not asked to leave. Appellant indicated that she responded that she did not have to leave 

and that she was gathering her personal belongings. She was then standing by her case, and L.C. 

approached her and asked, in a loud, intimidating voice, whether she needed something or had a 

problem. Appellant indicated that she responded “No,” and that L.C. told her to leave again in a 

loud and rude tone. She requested that an investigation be conducted and named several witnesses 

to the incident. 

In a narrative report dated February 20, 2022, Dr. Mark W. Mittauer, a Board-certified 

psychiatrist, noted that appellant related worsening symptoms of MDD and PTSD, which she 

attributed to being harassed by L.C. on January 24, 2022 In a duty status report (Form CA-17) 

dated February 22, 2022, he noted worsening depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, MDD, PTSD, 

and insomnia due to the January 24, 2022 employment incident. Dr. Mittauer recommended that 

appellant remain out of work. He indicated that the incident was witnessed by a coworker named

D.O. Dr. Mittauer related that he provided appellant psychiatric treatment, including psychotropic 

medications. He opined that the “upsetting event” worsened her psychiatric conditions of MDD 

and PTSD. Dr. Mittauer further opined that appellant was unable to work in any capacity for the 

employing establishment. 

In a letter dated March 4, 2022, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim. 

In a grievance form dated March 14, 2022 and a letter dated March 24, 2022, appellant 

indicated that she had not received continuation of pay (COP) or any other compensation for five 

weeks, which had caused her further mental anguish, depression, and anxiety. 

In a letter dated March 29, 2022, Dr. Mittauer requested approval for appellant’s claim for 

COP. He noted that the delay in receipt of payment had worsened her depression, anxiety, and 

symptoms of PTSD. 

In an April 1, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

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

evidence necessary to establish her claim and attached a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

OWCP thereafter received a March 29, 2022 Step B grievance decision, which determined 

that the available documentation did not substantiate that a violation of the National Agreement of 

the Joint Statement on Violence on Behavior in the workplace occurred. It explained that the file 

contained statements from some of the other employees on duty at the time of the January 24, 2022 

incident, but that there was nothing to support appellant’s contention that any type of harassment 

occurred. The grievance was deemed resolved.
4

A separate Step B grievance decision also dated March 29, 2022 remanded the matter to 

local parties for further documentation pertaining to the processing of appellant’s claim for COP. 

In a narrative report dated April 8, 2022, Dr. Mittauer indicated that he had provided 

psychiatric treatment to appellant on eight occasions prior to the January 24, 2022 incident and 

thereafter on February 22 and March 22, 2022. He noted that on July 29, 2020 a customer 

threatened her with a gun while she was delivering mail, which caused her to develop PTSD, 

including nightmares, flashbacks, and intrusive recollections of threat to her safety. Then, in 

April 2021, the customer violated a restraining order, followed appellant, and was present in places 

he was supposed to avoid, which worsened appellant’s PTSD symptoms.4 On January 24, 2022

appellantwas harassed at work by L.C., who yelled at her. This was upsetting to her and worsened 

her psychiatric conditions of MDD, other specified anxiety disorder, and PTSD. Dr. Mittauer

noted that appellant further related “ongoing harassment by certain coworkers and certain 

supervisors,” that she “experienced unfair treatment at work,” and that her local union 

representatives did not support her complaints or handle them properly. He opined that she was 

unable to work for the employing establishment in any capacity and requested that her claim for 

COP and compensation benefits be approved. 

In an April 19, 2022 statement in response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant indicated 

that she had similar symptoms prior to the claimed January 24, 2022 employment incident. She 

related that, beginning in late 2014, she claimed that she was “always getting yelled [at] and 

humiliated by my postmaster,” and never clearly understood why. Appellant felt like a target and, 

after the incident on January 24, 2022 she experienced a lot of emotions and flashbacks from 

previous attacks. She felt humiliated, and small because her coworkers looked on, but did not 

intervene. Appellant tried to work after the incident, but was so anxious that she ultimately sought 

medical attention and was removed from the work environment. She disagreed with L.C.’s 

statement and noted that D.O. was previously her union president.

In a further undated statement, appellant indicated that the city carrier assistant (CCA) and 

A.K., two additional witnesses, agreed to write statements on her behalf, but then declined as they 

“did not want to get involved.” As a result, she indicated that she was not able to provide all the 

information that OWCP requested in its development letter. 

By decision dated May 27, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, finding 

that she had not established a compensable factor of employment as causing or contributing to her 

diagnosed emotional condition. Consequently, it found that she had not met the requirements to 

establish that she “sustained an emotional condition that arose during the course of employment 

and within the scope of compensable work factors as defined by FECA.”

On June 29, 2022 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s May 27, 2022 decision

and submitted additional medical evidence. In a June 26, 2022 statement, she described the 

July 29, 2020, April 7, 2021, and January 24, 2022 employment incidents. Appellant reiterated 

4 OWCP accepted the July 29, 2020 claim for aggravation of anxiety and MDD under OWCP File No. xxxxxx212. 

It also accepted the April 7, 2021 claim for MDD and PTSD under OWCP File No. xxxxxx427. Appellant’s claims 

have not been administratively combined by OWCP.
5

that on January 24, 2022 she felt singled out and that she was treated with a lack of dignity by L.C. 

and that this negatively impacted her mental state and life. 

In a letter dated September 1, 2022, appellant’s representative noted that appellant had an 

accepted claim for an emotional condition under OWCP File No. xxxxxx212. He requested that 

OWCP administratively combine the current claim with OWCP File No. xxxxxx212, as he 

believed that the current claim caused an aggravation of an underlying condition . 

In a subsequent narrative report dated September 7, 2022, Dr. Mittauer opined that the 

claimed January 24, 2022 employment incident substantially aggravated appellant’s accepted 

July 29, 2020 conditions. He noted that she attempted to work for one week after the January 24, 

2022 incident, but was unable to do so due to a permanent aggravation of the underlying accepted 

conditions. 

By decision dated September 23, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its May 27, 2022 

decision. 

On October 31, 2022 appellant, through her representative, requested reconsideration and 

submitted legal arguments. He argued that OWCP had not referenced or discussed the medical 

evidence.

By decision dated November 1, 2022, OWCP denied modification of its September 23, 

2022 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 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,6that 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.7 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.8

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) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing 

5

Supra note 2.

6 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). 

7 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).

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

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).
6

that the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to his or her emotional 

condition.9 

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,

10 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.11 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.12

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

condition claim.13 Where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he or she must 

substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence.

14

 

Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s 

employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than 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

Verbal altercations and difficult relationships with supervisors/managers, when 

sufficiently detailed and supported by the record, may constitute compensable factors of 

employment.17 However, this does not imply that every ostensibly abusive or threatening 

statement uttered in the workplace will give rise to coverage under FECA. For appellant to prevail 

9

S.D., Docket No. 23-0898 (issued July 13, 2023); R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February 14, 2020).

10 28 ECAB 125, 129 (1976).

11 See L.Y., Docket No. 21-0344 (issued June 15, 2023); M.R., Docket No. 18-0305 (issued October 18, 2018); 

Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 136 (1999).

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

13 See V.H., Docket No. 22-0882 (issued June 9, 2023); A.C., Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018).

14 L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020); G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018).

15 See L.N., Docket No. 22-0126 (issued June15, 2023); C.V., Docket No. 18-0580 (issued September 17, 2018).

16 K.W., Docket No. 20-0832 (issued June 21, 2022); A.B., Docket No. 18-0635 (issued August 14, 2020); DavidC. 

Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263, 268 (2005); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 

566 (1991).

17 L.Y., supra note 11: J.M., Docket No. 16-0717 (issued January 12, 2017); L.M., Docket No. 13-0267 (issued 

November 15, 2013).
7

on his or her claim, he or she must support his or her allegations with probative and reliable 

evidence.18 

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

Appellant has not attributed her emotional condition to the performance of her regular or 

specially assigned duties under Cutler.

19

 Rather she has alleged that she sustained an emotional 

condition as a result of harassment by her supervisor, L.C, on January 24, 2022. OWCP denied 

appellant’s emotional condition claim on the grounds that she did not establish any compensable 

employment factors. The Board must, thus, initially review whether these alleged incidents and 

conditions of employment are covered employment factors under the terms of FECA. 20 

Appellant claimed that on January 24, 2022 L.C. told a coworker to stay away from 

appellant, because she was “nothing but trouble.” Later, when she started her route for the day, 

she received multiple scanner messages from L.C., who asked why she was so far behind on her 

route. When appellant returned to her work location after completing her route, she indicated that 

L.C. told her to leave if she was already clocked out in a loud and rude tone. In a witness statement, 

D.O. indicated that L.C. instructed allthe employees to finish work, clock out, and leave, and when 

appellant responded thatshe was already clocked out, L.C. specifically instructed her to leave. In 

her statement, L.C. confirmed that she asked all the employees to clock out and leave, and that 

appellant told her it was none of L.C.’s business what she was doing, waved her arms around, and 

claimed she was being harassed.

As noted above, where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he or she 

must substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence. 21 The record does not 

contain any evidence substantiating appellant’s allegations that on January 24, 2022 L.C. told a 

coworker to stay away from appellant or that she received multiple scanner messages from L.C. 

on that date. The Board finds, therefore, that appellant has not established a compensable 

employment factor relating to those allegations.

Regarding appellant’s allegations that she was publicly scolded/verbally abused by L.C. 

on January 24, 2022 in front of her coworkers, the Board has generally held that being spoken to 

in a raised or harsh voice does not of itself constitute verbal abuse or harassment. 22 The witness 

statements of record did not corroborate appellant’s allegation of verbal abuse and there was no 

18 Y.J., Docket No. 15-1137 (issued October 4, 2016) (allegations of verbal abuse must be surrounded by specificity 

in order to more appropriately gauge the context in which they were made).

19 Supra note 10.

20 L.N., supra note 15; S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

21 Supra note 14.

22 A.C., Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018); S.O., Docket No. 16-1156 (issued October 21, 2016).
8

evidence that the supervisor’s remarks were unwarranted.23 Therefore, the Board finds that 

appellant has not established error or abuse in connection with L.C.’s instructions on January 24, 

2022 for her to stop casing mail, and leave the workplace if she was already clocked out. 

Accordingly, the Board finds that she has not established a compensable employment factor with 

respect to this allegation.

As appellant has not established a compensable employment factor, the Board finds that it 

is not necessary to consider the medical evidence of record. 24 

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 an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

23 A.C., id.

24 See C.Y., Docket No. 22-0699 (issued June 2, 2023); B.O., Docket No. 17-1986 (issued January 18, 2019) 

(finding that it is not necessary to consider the medical evidence of record if a claimant has not established any 

compensable employment factors). See also Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-03 (1992).
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 1, 2022 and September 23, 2022 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed.

Issued: December 14, 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