United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Grand Rapids, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0214

Issued: April 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se,

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 21, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an August 22, 2022 merit

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 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 The Board notes that, following the August 22, 2022 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 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 Appellant submitted a timely request for oral argument before the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). Pursuant to the 

Board’s Rules of Procedure, oral argument may be held in the discretion of the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(a). In 

support of her oral argument request, appellant asserted that oral argument should be granted to discuss issues 

including conversion date accuracy, the denial of a position, the mishandling of medical documents, and harassment

and retaliation by management. The Board, in exercising its discretion, denies the request for oral argument because 

the arguments on appeal can adequately be addressed in a decision based on a review of the case record. Oral argument 

in this appeal would further delay issuance of a Board decision and not serve a useful purpose. As such, oral argument

is denied and this decision is based on the case record as submitted to the Board.
2

ISSUE

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

condition in the performance of duty on July 8, 2022, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 15, 2022 appellant, then a 49-year-old postal distributor, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on July 8, 2022 she developed an emotional condition due to 

work-related stress and depression related to harassment and retaliation while in the performance 

of duty. On the reverse side of the claim form, an employing establishment supervisor

controverted the claim, asserting that she had not been injured in the performance of duty and had 

reported experiencing ongoing stress and anxiety in her personal life due to issues unrelated to her 

federal employment. Appellant stopped work on July 9, 2022.

In a July 18, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of her 

claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to establish her claim 

and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to 

respond. Appellant did not respond.

4

By decision dated August 22, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish fact of injury as she had not 

established that the events or incident occurred as alleged. It noted that she had not responded to 

its development questionnaire. Consequently, OWCP found that appellant had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA5 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim,6including that he or she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty and that any specific condition or disability from work for which he or she 

claims compensation is causally related to that 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 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 

4

In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide 

additional information, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor. 

5 Supra note 2.

6 L.G., Docket No. 21-0690 (issued December 9, 2021); S.S., Docket No. 19-1021 (issued April 21,2021); O.G., 

Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968).

7 L.G., id.; S.S., id.; G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

8 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); T.O., Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

October 29, 2018); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).
3

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.9

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment.10 There are situations where an injury or an 

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

concept or coverage of workers’ compensation. Where the disability 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.11 On the other hand, the 

disability is not covered when it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-inforce or his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment, or to 

hold a particular position.12

Appellant’s burden of proof includes the submission of a detailed description of the 

employment factors which he or she believes caused or adversely affected a condition for which 

compensation is claimed.13 As a rule, allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish 

a factual basis for an emotional condition claim. The claim must be supported by probative 

evidence.14 For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, 

there must be probative and reliable evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur.15 

Mere perceptions of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.16 

ANALYSIS

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

condition in the performance of duty on July 8, 2022, as alleged.

Appellant has not provided sufficient detail to establish that an emotional condition

occurred in the performance of duty.17 In her July 15, 2022 Form CA-1, she generally alleged that 

on July 8, 2022 she experienced work-related stress and depression due to harassment and 

retaliation while in the performance of duty. Appellant did not provide details such as when, 

where, or how the alleged harassment occurred, the individuals involved, or the actions or 

9 See S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December24, 2014); 

Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

10 See L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006).

11 See S.K., supra note 9; D.T., Docket No. 19-1270 (issued February 4, 2020); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 

(1990); Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

12 See S.K., id.; Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

13 P.T., Docket No. 14-0598 (issued August 5, 2014).

14 L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020).

15 R.D., Docket No. 19-0877 (issued September 8, 2020); T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019); Marlon 

Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003).

16 Id.; see also Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001).

17 See J.W., Docket No. 19-0335 (issued July 2, 2019).
4

statements that took place during the incident. By failing to sufficiently describe the employment 

incident and/or circumstances surrounding her alleged condition, she has not established that an 

emotional condition occurred in the performance of duty.

18

 In a July 18, 2022 development letter, 

OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual and medical evidence needed to establish her claim

and provided a factual questionnaire for her completion. Appellant did not respond.19 

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

FECA and, thus, has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional condition in the 

performance of duty.

20

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 on July 8, 2022, as alleged.

18 Supra notes 12 and 13.

19 K.S., Docket No. 17-2001 (issued March 9, 2018); see also K.W., Docket No. 16-1656 (issued 

December 15, 2016).

20 See E.M., Docket No. 19-0156 (issued May 23, 2019); D.C., Docket No. 18-0082 (issued July 12, 2018); L.S., 

Docket No. 16-0769 (issued July 11, 2016); D.D., 57 ECAB 734 (2006).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 22, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: April 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board