United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

A.D., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WEST ALLIS POST 

OFFICE, Milwaukee, WI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0639

Issued: October 7, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 16, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 26, 

2021 merit decision 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 issuance of the February 26, 2021 decision, OWCP received additional 

evidence. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedureprovides: “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 causally related to the accepted March 28, 2020 employment incident.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 20, 2020 appellant, then a 33-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on March 28, 2020 she developed stress while in the performance of 

duty. She explained that she was verbally threatened with physical harm by a customer. Appellant 

noted that the customer threatened to “kick her a** and send the dog on me.” She stopped work 

on the date of injury. 

OWCP, in an April 20, 2020 development letter, informed appellant that the evidence of 

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

evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for completion. In a separate development letter of 

even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment comment on the accuracy of 

appellant’s statements. It afforded both parties 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

In response to OWCP’s development letter, the employing establishment submitted an 

April 20, 2020 letter in which it challenged appellant’s claim based on a statement from L.C., a 

supervisor/manager. It also contended that she did not complete her Form CA-1 until 17 days later 

after being informed on the date of injury to provide a statement and to complete the claim form. 

The employing establishment noted that appellant did not provide a written statement of the 

alleged incident to management.

In an April 17, 2020 e-mail, L.C. controverted appellant’s claim, contending that she failed 

to provide a statement and cooperate with the investigation regarding the alleged incident. She 

noted that appellant initially related to a postal inspector that she was on her cell phone when she 

and a customer exchanged words that led to an argument between them because the customer 

overheard her comment that she was glad that he was getting his dog, but after she returned to the 

office she placed complete blame on the customer, claiming that he threatened to let his dog loose 

on her. L.C. related that employees were not allowed to use their cell phones while in the line of 

duty except in an emergency, and that several customers had complained about appellant being on 

her cell phone.

By letter dated April 24, 2020, the employing establishment submitted a copy of the postal 

inspector’s April 15, 2020 assault and threat specialty report, which indicated that appellant was 

on her cell phone when she was involved in an argument with a customer who threatened her with 

physical harm.

OWCP received a May 11, 2020 return-to-work report by Marcelle A. Bullard, a physician 

assistant, who noted a date of injury as March 28, 2020, opined that appellant sustained workrelated verbal abuse from an adult, and advised that she may return to work without restrictions on 

May 12, 2020.

In a May 19, 2020 return-to-work report, Dr. David M. Wehby, an attending Boardcertified family practitioner, noted a date of injury as March 28, 2020. He diagnosed verbal abuse 

of adult and anxiety in acute stress reaction and opined that the diagnosed conditions were work 
3

related. Dr. Wehby advised that appellant may return to work with restrictions as of the date of 

his report.

By a June 3, 2020 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the factual component of fact of injury. It 

noted that she provided a vague description of the alleged March 28, 2020 employment incident.

OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as 

defined by FECA.

OWCP subsequently received an additional return-to-work report by Dr. Wehby dated 

June 9, 2020. Dr. Wehby reiterated the date of injury as March 28, 2020, and his diagnoses of 

verbal abuse of an adult and anxiety in acute stress reaction and opinion that the diagnosed 

conditions were work related. He indicated that appellant may return to work with restrictions on 

June 15, 2020.

On June 19, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a 

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review regarding the June 3, 2020 decision. 

In a May 18, 2020 response to OWCP’s April 20, 2020 development letter, appellant again 

attributed her emotional and physical conditions to the alleged March 28, 2020 work incident. She 

listed employees who were aware of the alleged work incident. Appellant explained the delay in 

filing her claim, noting that L.C. did not believe her and refused to give her a Form CA-1. She 

noted that she had no prior emotional condition.

In an undated narrative statement, appellant noted that around 1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. on 

March 28, 2020 a man came out of his house talking “very crazy” and disrespectful to her. The 

customer thought she had called him a profane name, which she denied. Appellant told him what 

she had said about his dog while she was on her cell phone and the customer disliked her comment. 

They both became upset and engaged in an argument. The customer physically threatened 

appellant stating that he was going to let his dog loose on her. Following the incident, she returned 

to the office shaking and an employee and a supervisor were on the telephone with L.C. who asked 

her to immediately write a statement regarding the alleged incident. Appellant became upset 

because she believed that no one cared about what had happened to her.

In an additional undated narrative statement, appellant noted her emotional and physical 

reaction to L.C.’s refusal to provide her with a Form CA-1 or an authorization for examination 

and/or treatment (Form CA-16) when she returned to work for only one hour on April 8, 2020 and 

a full day on April 13, 2020.

Appellant submitted witness statements from her coworker and a union steward who 

corroborated her account of L.C.’s refusal to provide her with a Form CA-1 and being involved in 

a verbal altercation with a customer who threatened to let his dog loose on her while delivering 

her route on March 28, 2020.

An oral hearing was held before an OWCP hearing representative on September 3, 2020.

Subsequently, OWCP received an October 27, 2020 progress note from Rebecca Bons, 

Psy.D., a clinical psychologist, who reported appellant’s chief complaint of work-related anxiety 

and stress. Ms. Bons diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxious mood.
4

By decision dated November 18, 2020, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

June 3, 2020 decision as modified. She accepted that the March 28, 2020 verbal and physical 

altercation constituted a compensable employment factor, but denied appellant’s claim, finding 

that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the accepted compensable 

employment factor caused her diagnosed emotional conditions. 

On November 30, 2020 appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration and 

submitted additional medical evidence.

In a November 19, 2020 report, Dr. Bons noted that appellant was under her care for 

outpatient psychotherapy to resolve symptoms related to a significant work stressor in which she 

was verbally assaulted by an individual in the community. As a result of the incident, she exhibited 

a stress reaction when presented with reminders of the situation. The stress reactions presented as 

anxiety, fear, hypervigilance, and an array of physical symptoms (e.g., shakiness, increased heart 

rate, heavy breathing, elevated stress response, and tearfulness). Dr. Bons related that stress 

reactions occurred at varying levels, were typically triggered by reminders of an event, the body’s 

reaction to a feared situation or one’s life perceived at risk, and could limit functioning. She 

reported that appellant expressed concern that her anxiety and stress had increased since the 

incident and limited her ability to perform her regular duties. Dr. Bons indicated that, through the 

implementation of cognitive behavioral and supportive strategies, appellant was working to 

decrease anxiety, depression, and stress reactions resulting from the incident.

In progress notes dated and signed November 20 and December 16, 2020, Dr. Bons 

restated appellant’s chief complaint of work-related anxiety and stress. She diagnosed adjustment 

disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Dr. Bons also diagnosed moderate adjustment 

disorder with mixed disturbance.

OWCP also received physical therapy progress reports and daily notes dated from 

December 1 through 30, 2020.

By decision dated February 26, 2021, OWCP denied modification of the November 18, 

2020 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 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 of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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. 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. 5

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 

4

Supra note 2.

5 M.H., Docket No. 19-0930 (issued June17, 2020); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 357 (2001).
5

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 

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

condition.

6

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.7 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.8

Rationalized medical opinion evidence is required to establish causal relationship. The 

opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background, must be 

one of reasonable medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the 

nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors 

identified by the claimant.9

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant submitted progress notes dated October 27, November 20, and December 16, 

2020 from Dr. Bons, a clinical psychologist, who diagnosed adjustment disorder with anxious 

mood. In a November 19, 2020 report, Dr. Bons opined that appellant’s conditions were due to a 

work-related verbal assault by an individual in the community. She noted that, as a result of the 

incident, appellant exhibited a stress reaction when presented with reminders of the situation. The 

stress reactions presented as anxiety, fear, hypervigilance, and an array of physical symptoms (e.g., 

shakiness, increased heart rate, heavy breathing, elevated stress response, and tearfulness). Dr. 

Bons related that stress reactions occurred at varying levels, were typically triggered by reminders 

of an event, the body’s reaction to a feared situation or one’s life perceived at risk, and could limit 

functioning. She reported that appellant expressed concern that her anxiety and stress had 

increased since the incident and limited her ability to perform her regular duties. Dr. Bons

indicated that through the implementation of cognitive behavioral and supportive strategies 

appellant was working to decrease anxiety, depression, and stress reactions resulting from the 

incident.

The Board notes that, while Dr. Bons’ November 19, 2020 report is not completely 

rationalized, it is consistent in indicating that appellant developed an employment-related 

emotional condition and is not contradicted by any substantial medical or factual evidence of 

6 R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February14, 2020).

7 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); PamelaR. Rice, 38 ECAB 838 (1987).

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

9 D.M., Docket No. 20-0314 (issued June30, 2020); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008);Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 

345 (1989).
6

record.10 While Dr. Bons’ opinion is not sufficient to meet appellant’s burden of proof to establish 

her claim, it raises an uncontroverted inference between appellant’s emotional condition and the 

compensable employment factor and, thus, is sufficient to require OWCP to further develop the 

medical evidence.

11

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and, while 

appellant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares 

responsibility in the development of the evidence,

12 to see that justice is done.13

On remand OWCP shall refer appellant to a specialist in the appropriate field of medicine, 

together with the case record and a statement of accepted facts, for a rationalized opinion regarding 

whether her emotional condition is causally related to the accepted compensable employment 

factor of March 28, 2020. If the physician opines that the emotional condition is not causally 

related to the accepted compensable employmentfactor, he or she must explain with rationale how 

or why their opinion differs from that of Dr. Bons. Following this and such other further 

development as OWCP deems necessary, it shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

10 See T.D., Docket No. 21-0377 (issued August25, 2021); E.J., Docket No. 09-1481 (issued February 19, 2010); 

John J. Carlone, 41 ECAB 354 (1989).

11 Id.

12 K.P., Docket 18-0056 (issued January 27, 2020); A.P., Docket No. 17-0813 (issued January 3, 2018).

13 S.C., Docket No. 21-0637 (issued August12, 2021); B.F., Docket No. 20-0990 (issued January 13, 2021); Y.D., 

Docket No. 19-1200 (issued April6, 2020).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 26, 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: October 7, 2021

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board