United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.W., Appellant

and

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF 

CONSULAR AFFAIRS, Atlanta, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-0832

Issued: June 21, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

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 March 4, 2020 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a January 24, 

2020 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.

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.
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 19, 2019 appellant, then a 44-year-old passport specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed emotional conditions 

including major depressive disorder and anxiety causally related to factors of her federal 

employment. She noted that she first became aware of her claimed conditions and their 

relationship to her federal employment on January 23, 2017. Appellant asserted that she was 

subjected to workplace discrimination, hostile work environment, reprisal, and threatening 

interactions with her supervisors. She stopped work on November 28, 2018. 

In a report dated May 9, 2017, Lindsay Thomas, a Board-certified psychiatric mental health 

nurse practitioner, noted that appellant was initially seen on May 7, 2017. She diagnosed major 

depressive disorder and generalized anxiety, and opined that the severity of appellant’s current 

anxiety and depression symptoms were likely temporary. Ms. Thomas recommended that 

appellant remain off work until July 10, 2017 as appellant was unable to perform her duties and 

then return to work for four hours a day. 

OWCP continued to receive disability slips excusing appellant from work. 

Ms. Thomas, in a report dated January 21, 2019, diagnosed recurrent severe major 

depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. She noted that appellant had been a patient 

since March 7, 2017 when appellant was seen for significant workplace stress. Ms. Thomas 

opined, based on appellant’s statements, that appellant’s work environment contributed

significantly to her mental health issues. 

In a March 13, 2019 statement, the employing establishment controverted the claim,

asserting that appellant had a history of disciplinary, conduct, and performance issues since 2014. 

It indicated that appellant filed a traumatic injury claim on November 28, 2018 for a slip and fall,

which had occurred nine days prior, and that she had not returned to work since. The employing 

establishment noted that her current claim was apparently based upon recent personnel actions. 

The personnel actions included the denial of a within-grade increase (WGI)in 2018 and placement

on a performance improvement plan (PIP) on November 18, 2018. The employing establishment 

also noted that appellant served a 14-day suspension, as of January 21, 2019,for improper personal 

conduct, failure to follow instructions, and being absent without leave (AWOL). 

In a development letter dated March 15, 2019, 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 development questionnaire for her 

completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

Appellant submitted numerous documents related to her allegations. She alleged that in 

2014 she engaged in a heated argument with her supervisor, J.C., regarding a leave request. J.C. 
3

placed the leave request on appellant’s head following her refusal to accept it. The record contains 

documents concerning an arrest and criminal charges brought against J.C. for the September 11, 

2014 incident, during which he placed her leave request on her head. The case against J.C. was 

closed and finalized on April 29, 2015 with a nolo contendere plea for a charge of disorderly 

conduct (fighting). 

Appellant, in an August 2014 statement, detailed incidents occurring from May to 

August 22, 2014 involving J.C. and V.A. She alleged that, while she was off work for her 

daughter’s graduation on May 22 and 23, 2014 the rest of the staff was trained regarding new 

policy. Management did not inform appellant of the new policy and she, therefore, made 

mistakes/errors due to the policy changes. She described another incident regarding her eligibility 

for a WGI on June 17, 2014. V.A. informed appellant that she would not receive the WGI due to 

her error rate, she was then given a performance evaluation, written by J.C., which was “personal 

and highly critical” and referred to her as a failure. After appellant objected to the evaluation, the 

human resources (HR) office directed that it be revised. Appellant further alleged that on July 8, 

2014 she was wrongly charged with an error in processing an application as the error should have 

been charged to J.C. who was required to review all her work while she was on 100 percent audit. 

The incidents alleged also included being issued a letter of admonishment for failure to work the 

counter as requested by appellant’s supervisor, J.C. However, during a July 25, 2014 meeting 

discussing the letter of admonishment, he admitted that he had not specifically instructed her to go 

to the counter. 

In an undated affidavit, appellant related that on August 21, 2014 J.C. informed her that 

she had left an application face-up on the counter of her workstation, which he turned over. The 

following day, August 22, 2014, she received an e-mail from J.C. informing her that he wanted to 

discuss her violation of the employing establishment policy regarding processing of work. During 

the meeting, J.C. informed her that disciplinary action would be taken regarding the August 21, 

2014 incident, but that the type of disciplinary action would be decided following discussions with 

HR. In response to appellant’s question about union representation, J.C. informed her that she was 

not entitled to union representation during the meeting. 

In an undated statement, appellant noted that on January 7, 2015 she submitted 

documentation regarding a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) request. She stated that her 

FMLA request for the period December 18, 2014 through January 2, 2015 had been approved, but 

the employing establishment refused to accept medical documentation for the period December 16 

to 17, 2014 and January 5 to 6, 2015. On January 29, 2015 appellant received e-mail 

correspondence from her supervisor advising that her FMLA request for December 3, 2014 

through January 7, 2015 would not be approved, even though she had signed the appropriate forms 

for the periods December 2 to 15, 2014 and December 18, 2014 through January 2, 2015. She

asserted that the documents provided by her supervisor were incomplete and without any 

explanation on how to complete the forms. As a result of the lack of information and incomplete 

documents, appellant stated that she had to research and print out the relevant forms. She stated 

that she provided medical certification to her supervisor on December 3, 2014 and 

January 7, 2015. According to appellant, her supervisor did not inform her of any FMLA time 

frames for submitting supporting medical documentation until January 7, 2015. She asserted the 

employing establishment erred in issuing her a leave restriction letter as she was within the 

timeframes for submission of her FMLA medical documentation. Appellant asserted that the 
4

voicemails and e-mails she received regarding her leave restriction and FMLA appeared to be

conflictingand were evidence of harassment by the employing establishment. She alleged reprisal 

and harassment for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint and requested to 

amend her current complaint to include the denial of her FMLA request and constant threats of 

disciplinary action. 

In a follow-up e-mail dated January 7, 2015, L.M., supervisory passport specialist, 

informed appellant that she would be charged with being AWOL from December 16, 2014 through 

January 7, 2015 until medical documentation was provided and noted that she was under leave 

restrictions. L.M., in April 15, 2015 e-mail correspondence, informed herthat herleave restriction 

expired on April 10, 2015. L.M. indicated that HR had advised appellant that she could not abide 

by the guidelines in the October 10, 2014 leave restriction letter until receiving a formal 

notification implementing new leave restriction and that she could follow the normal leave policy 

until then. 

In a letter dated June 1, 2015, the employing establishment advised appellant that it was 

proposing a three-day suspension without pay for failure to follow proper leave procedures. It 

noted that on October 10, 2014 that she was placed on leave restriction requiring advance requests 

and approvals of absences, and that 53.50 hours of leave under FMLA had been approved on 

November 25, 2014 for the period September 11 to 18, 2014. On December 2, 2014 appellant 

verbally advised that she was invoking her right to FMLA, however, she failed to complete and 

submit her request for FMLA. The employing establishment noted that she was denied 

authorization to use leave on November 28 and December 16 and 17, 2014, and January 5, 6, and

7, 2015. 

In a February 22, 2017 memorandum, appellant requested an extension of her FMLA leave. 

She requested between 174 and 480 hours of FMLA leave between January 30 and March 8, 2017

to cover her medical disability with an expected return to work date of March 9, 2017. The record 

contains e-mail correspondence dated July 14 and 24, 2017 between V.A., supervisory passport 

specialist, and M.W. conditionally approving appellant’s absences as leave without pay (LWOP) 

under FMLA. M.M., an employing establishment employee relations specialist, noted that 

appellant had LWOP approved through May 2018 as a reasonable accommodation for her parttime schedule. 

In e-mail correspondence dated November 28, 2017 from appellant to V.A., appellant 

requested to see video footage showing her entering an elevator on November 9, 2017 at 11:04 

a.m. and returning to her desk at 11:57 a.m. She asserted she had falsely been accused of being 

absent from her desk for approximately one hour and that she had been threatened with being 

charged with AWOL for this alleged absence. 

In July 5, 2018 e-mail correspondence, V.A., informed appellant that she did not have 

authorization to be away from her assigned task and that she failed to follow proper protocol by 

not requesting leave to be away from her assignment/workstation. V.A. noted that appellant had 

been advised to request time to be away from her desk outside her official break times. 

In a July 24, 2018 letter, appellant detailed her federal employment history. She noted that

she filed criminal charges against J.C., her supervisor, for hitting her on the head with a piece of 
5

paper. Following that incident, appellant filed three EEO complaints. She asserted that she was 

subjected to a hostile work environment, harassment, reprisal, undue scrutiny, and sabotage. 

Appellant stated that she has been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, anxiety, migraines, 

sciatica, herniated discs, etc. and has been granted a reasonable accommodation for these 

conditions. 

In July 26, 2018 e-mail correspondence to management, appellant alleged that she 

overheard L.K. and B.V. discussing her medical status and entitlement to FMLA. She noted that 

B.V. was a colleague and personal friend of L.K., and not a management official. 

Appellant noted that she had been placed on PIPs in 2015, 2016, and 2018. 

In e-mail correspondence dated December 11, 2018, V.A., informed appellant that her 

request for annual leave could not be approved due to the lack of supporting medical 

documentation for her illness. She informed appellant that she was currently on a PIP and was

expected to be in the office. V.A. further informed appellant that she would be charged AWOL 

until medical documentation was provided. 

In e-mail correspondence of even date, appellant requested assistance from G.Y., a union 

official, noting that she had called in sick that day and was being charged with AWOL because 

she was on a PIP. She stated that she was not on leave restrictions and alleged that her supervisors 

were constantly changing the rules applicable to her. 

The record also contains e-mail correspondence dated December 13 and 14, 2018 between 

appellant and R.A., appellant’s union president, concerning issues with her supervisor and her 

leave request. Appellant stated that her supervisor failed to help her with her workers’

compensation claim. In addition, she asserted that she was authorized to use annual leave when 

calling-in sick because she had no sick leave available. Appellant also asserted that her supervisor 

refused to provide an authorization for examination and/or treatment (Form CA-16) for her 

November 28, 2018 slip and fall injury and, as a result, she was being asked to pay for treatment 

since her health care plan would not pay for a work injury. 

In e-mail correspondence dated December 17, 2018, M.M. stated that appellant’s 

supervisors reported that appellant refused to provide medical documentation for her absences due 

to an employment injury until they provided a Form CA-16. She advised appellant that a Form 

CA-16 was only issued in severe emergency situations. M.M. noted that it appeared appellant’s

slip and fall was a minor injury based on witness statements and no medical documentation had 

been provided. She stated that appellant had been given guidance on how to submit medical bills 

to OWCP. 

In a January 21, 2019 form report, Lindsay Thomas, a Board-certified psychiatric mental 

health nurse practitioner, noted that appellant has been her patient since March 7, 2017 and that

counseling had been recommended. She stated that it was necessary for appellant to use leave to 

attend medical appointments due to her episodic flare-ups. Ms. Thomas checked a box marked

“No” to the question of whether appellant was disabled from performing the duties of her position. 

In a letter dated March 13, 2019, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

assertions noting that she had a history of performance, disciplinary, and conduct issues since 
6

2014. It noted that she served a 3-day suspension for AWOL and failure to follow leave procedures

in 2015, that a WGI had been denied in 2014, and that she had been placed on a PIP, which 

appellant passed. The employing establishment noted that appellant was also denied a WGI in 

2018; was placed on a PIP on November 19, 2018; that appellant refused to submit medical 

documentation for a November 28, 2019 slip and fall injury; she displayed combative behavior 

when given guidance and instructions on filing this claim; and that appellant served a 14-day 

suspension beginning on January 21, 2019 for improper personal conduct, failure to follow 

instructions, and being AWOL. 

In March 27, 2019 e-mail correspondence, M.M. stated that appellant’s assertion that she 

had not been provided any advice on how to file a workers’ compensation claim was untrue. She

stated that a detailed e-mail had been sent to appellant containing relevant information regarding 

her traumatic injury, which appellant appeared to either have ignored or not read. M.M. noted that 

information had beenprovided to appellant on how to receive reimbursement for medical treatment 

without a Form CA-16. She informed appellant that she had previously been given an explanation 

as to why a Form CA-16 had not been issued and that the issuance of a Form CA-16 was not 

required by the employing establishment in all cases. Additionally, M.M. stated that the witness 

statements did not support a severe slip and fall claim. She attached copies of the e-mail 

correspondence to appellant regarding the November 28, 2019 slip and fall including information 

on how to file a claim. The correspondence informed appellant of the lack of any supporting 

medical documentation and witness statements and advised her on the submission of medical 

documentation. 

In an April 9, 2019 report, Ms. Thomas noted the dates of treatment and that appellant had

been disabled from work since January 2017. She diagnosed major depressive disorder and 

generalized anxiety. Ms. Thomas opined that she was unable to determine the cause of appellant’s 

emotional condition, but noted that appellant reported a significant amount of work stress. This 

report was subsequently cosigned by Opeoluwa Akinnusi, a Board-certified psychiatrist. 

On April 15, 2019 OWCP received appellant’s undated statement asserting that her 14-day 

suspension was predicated on false statements from her coworkers and that she was falsely charged 

with being AWOL. Appellant alleged that the statements regarding her slip and fall accident were 

inaccurate. She asserted that, since 2014 she had been under constant scrutiny for her work, attire, 

break times, and departure from work. 

By decision dated June 25, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that she had not

established the factual component of her claim. Specifically, it found that the evidence she

submitted was vague and general without any supporting documentation. OWCP concluded, 

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

On July 2, 2019 appellant, through counsel, requested a telephonic hearing before a

representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review, held on October 16, 2019. During the 

hearing,she testified that she had filed EEO complaints, which were denied, and that had requested 

an investigation by the Inspector General into her allegations of discrimination, but had received 

no response. Appellant also alleged that her supervisor would aggressively throw boxes of work

assignments onto her desk, and would make facetious remarks about her work. 
7

By decision dated January 24, 2020, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed the June 25, 

2019 decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim,4including that he or she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, and that any specific condition or disability for work for wh ich he or she 

claims compensation is causally related to that employment injury. 5 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.6

To establish an emotional condition causally related to factors of a claimant’s federal 

employment, he or she must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying and supporting employment 

factors or incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to the condition; (2) medical evidence 

establishing an emotional condition or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion 

evidence establishing that the emotional condition is causally related to the identified compensable 

employment factors.7

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

somehow related to a claimant’s employment. There are situations where an injury or illness has 

some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the purview of 

workers’ compensation. When disability results from an emotional reaction to regular or specially 

assigned work duties or a requirement imposed by the employment, the d isability is deemed 

compensable.8 However, disability is not compensable when it results from factors such as an 

employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force, or frustration from not being permitted to work in a 

particular environment, or to hold a particular position.9

3

Supra note 2.

4 M.J., Docket No. 20-0953 (issued December 8, 2021); O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968).

5 M.J., id.; O.G., id.; G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008);Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.115; R.D., Docket No. 21-0050 (issued February 25, 2022); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 

(1999); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, id.

7

See A.B., Docket No. 18-0635 (issued August 14, 2020); S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019);

C.M.,Docket No. 17-1076 (issued November 14, 2018); DebbieJ. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye 

Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

8 A.B., id.; A.C.,Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018); PamelaD. Casey, 57 ECAB 260, 263 (2005);

Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125, 129 (1976).

9 A.B., id.; Cutler, id.
8

An employee’s emotional reaction to administrative or personnel matters generally falls 

outside of FECA’s scope.10 Although related to the employment, administrative and personnel 

matters are functions of the employer rather than the regular or specially assigned duties of the 

employee.11 However, to the extent 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.12

To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment by coworkers 

are established as occurring and arising from a claimant’s performance of his or her regular duties, 

these could constitute employment factors.13 However, for harassment to give rise to a 

compensable disability under FECA there must be evidence that harassment did, in fact, occur.

Perceptions and feelings, alone, are not compensable. To establish entitlement to benefits, 

a claimant must establish a basis in fact for the claim by supporting his or her allegations with 

probative and reliable evidence.14 When the matter asserted is a compensable factor of 

employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter asserted, OWCP must 

base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence.15

ANALYSIS

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

OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, finding that she had not established 

a compensable employment factor. The Board must therefore initially review whether the alleged 

incidents and conditions of employment are covered employment factors under the terms of 

FECA.16

10 A.B., id; G.R.,Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018); AndrewJ. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170, 171 (2001);

Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421, 423 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990),reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 

566 (1991).

11 A.B., id.; David C. Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263, 268 (2005);McEuen, id.

12 Id.

13 See B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); M.R., Docket No. 18-0304 (issued November 13, 2018);

David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991); KathleenD. Walker, 42 ECAB 603, 608 (1991).

14 A.B., supra note 8; G.R., supra note 11; Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001).

15 See C.M., supra note 8; Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992). Unless a claimant establishes a 

compensable factor of employment, it is unnecessary to address the medical evidence of record. T.G.,Docket No. 19-

0071 (issued May 28, 2019); Garry M. Carlo, 47 ECAB 299, 305 (1996); Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-

3 (1992).

16 See S.H., Docket No. 21-0240 (issued May 2, 2022), 
9

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

specially assigned duties under Cutler.

17

 Rather, appellant has alleged error and abuse by 

management in administrative and personnel actions, as well as harassment, reprisal, and a hostile 

work environment.

As noted above, an employee’s emotional reaction to administrative actions or personnel 

matters taken by the employing establishment is not covered under FECA as such matters pertain 

to procedures and requirements of the employer and do not bear a direct relation to the work 

required of an employee unless there is error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment.18 

In determining whether the employing establishment erred or acted abusively, the Board will 

examine the factual evidence of record.19 

Appellant alleged events that had occurred involving her supervisors since 2014. She

alleged that her coworkers were provided training regarding new policies in May 2014, on days 

she was off work, but that she was never informed of the new policies. Training is a managerial 

action, and absent evidence establishing error or abuse, a claimant’s disagreement or dislike of 

such a managerial action is not a compensable factor of employment.20 Appellant has not 

substantiated that the employing establishment improperly offered training on her days off or that 

it failed to inform her of new policy requirements. 

Appellant further alleged that she was denied a WGI in June 2014 and was then given a 

“personal and highly critical” performance evaluation. In July 2014, she alleged that she was 

improperly charged with an error and she was improperly admonished for failing to report/work 

the counter. During August 2014 appellant was threatened with disciplinary action for leaving an

application face-up on her desk and was denied union representation during the discussion of the 

incident. She alleged that she was falsely accused of being absent from her desk in 2017.

Appellant also alleged that she wrongfully denied a WGI in 2018, wrongfully placed her on PIPs 

in 2015, 2016, and 2018. Although the handling of disciplinary actions and evaluations are 

generally related to the employment, the Board has held that they are administrative functions of 

the employing establishment, not duties of the employee, and are not covered under FECA. An 

administrative or personnel matter will be considered to be an employment factor where the 

evidence discloses error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment. In determining 

whether the employing establishment erred or acted abusively, the Board has to examine whether 

the employing establishment acted reasonably.21 Appellant has not offered evidence to establish 

that the employing establishment acted unreasonably in these matters and therefore she has not 

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,supra 9.

18 R.D., id.; G.R., supra note 11;AndrewJ. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170-71 (2001), 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. 

McEuen, supranote 11.

19 R.D., id.; B.S., supra note 14;RuthS. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).

20 R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February 14, 2020); Carolyn S. Philpott, 51 ECAB 175 (1999).

21 Supra note 13.
10

established a compensable employment factor relating to her disciplinary and performance 

evaluation matters.22

Appellant also described a number of allegations related to her requests for FMLA leave, 

and other leave issues, commencing in December 2014. She alleged that management wrongfully 

issued a 3-day suspension on June 1, 2015 for failure to follow leave policy, and a 14-day 

suspension on January 21, 2019. She alleged also improprieties in the handling of her CA-1 claim 

in November 2018. Handling of leave requests23 and workers’ compensation matters24 are also

administrative functions of the employer and not duties of the employee. Appellant has not 

established that the employing establishment improperly denied her leave requests or otherwise 

acted unreasonably. 

Appellant further alleged that she was subjected to discrimination, reprisal, and harassment 

by management, specifically V.A. and J.C. Specifically, she asserted that she was subjected to 

daily scrutiny. Appellant also alleged that V.A. improperly discussed her medical status with a 

co-employee. The Board also finds that appellant submitted no evidence corroborating her 

allegations of harassment. Harassment can constitute a factor of employment if it is shown that 

the incidents constituting the claimed harassment actually occurred, however, mere perceptions 

are not compensable under FECA.25 As appellant has not provided evidence corroborating her 

assertions, she has not established a compensable employment factor as to any of these allegations

of harassment.

Appellant further alleged, however, that her supervisor, J.C., inappropriately placed a piece 

of paper on her head on September 11, 2014. This physical contact is substantiated by the evidence 

of record, including documentation concerning the arrest of and criminal charges brought against 

supervisor J.C. for the September 11, 2014 incident. The Board thus finds that this physical contact 

constitutes error and abuse by the employing establishment.26 A compensable employment factor 

has therefore been established. 

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

issue of causal relationship regarding this accepted factor. The Board will therefore set aside 

OWCP’s January 24, 2020 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.

22 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.17(j) (July 1997);see 

R.D., supra note 13; D.B., Docket No. 18-0537 (issued September 12, 2018).

23 M.R., Docket No. 18-0305 (issued October 18, 2019); A.L.,Docket No. 17-0368 (issued June 20, 2018).

24 B.Y., Docket No. 17-1822 (issued January 18, 2019). 

25 B.L., Docket No. 18-0965 (issued November 19, 2018); Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991).

26 J.T., Docket No. 20-0390 (issued April2, 2021); D.B., Docket No. 19-1543 (issued March 6, 2020); S.B., Docket 

No. 16-1522 (issued March 3, 2017); E.M., Docket No. 16-1695 (issued June 27, 2017); D.S.,Docket No. 15-0585 

(issued July 11, 2016); Alton L. White, 42 ECAB 666 (1991)(physical contact arising in the course of employment, if 

substantiated by the evidence of record, may constitute a compensable employment factor).
11

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 24, 2020 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: June 21, 2022

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