United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.G., Appellant

and

DEFENSE AGENCIES, PENTAGON FORCE 

PROTECTION AGENCY, Alexandria, VA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0071

Issued: May 28, 2019

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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 11, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 21, 2018 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 an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 17, 2018 appellant, then a 35-year-old police officer, filed an occupational disease 

claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained hypertension, stress, anxiety, depression, panic 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

attacks, and insomnia due to factors of his federal employment. He indicated that he first became 

aware of his claimed conditions on January 29, 2018 and realized that they were related to his 

federal employment on March 24, 2018. On the reverse side of the claim form the employing 

establishment indicated that appellant first reported his conditions on March 25, 2018, and that he 

was last exposed to the conditions alleged to have caused disease on March 26, 2018.

In an accompanying undated statement, appellant related that at approximately 11:00 p.m. 

on March 24, 2018 he was dispatched to respond to the employing establishment’s overflow 

parking lot. Immediately upon arriving on the scene, he observed Captain T.A. situated in the 

middle of the parking lot among other officers. Appellant indicated that he perceived this to be a 

training scenario. He then began to experience a series of panic attacks and fear due to his anxiety, 

which seemed uncontrollable. Appellant called his immediate supervisor, Sergeant J.H., and 

requested immediate leave due to his condition which was granted. He recalled a prior similar 

training session held on January 29, 2018 during which he had been humiliated by his captain. 

Appellant noted that he experienced nightmares and insomnia following the January 29, 2018

session, during which he was assigned the role of a “casualty” which he found confusing and 

discriminatory and during which he was directed to retrieve his gas mask, rather than simulate 

wearing a gas mask. He noted that he had constant fear of his captain humiliating him again, and 

worried about the potential harm done to his professional reputation. Appellant alleged that he 

experienced continuous hostile work environment due to retaliation for previous involvement in 

the equal employment opportunity (EEO) process. He related that he had reported these events 

through the chain of command, but no action was taken to correct the problem. Appellant further 

indicated that from February 1, 2018 onward he had been subjected to the receiving end of 

distasteful jokes from multiple sources in relation to the January 29, 2018 training incident. He 

noted that the effects from such humiliation had been so severe that it had adversely altered the 

conditions of his employment in creating an intimidatingly hostile work environment.

Appellant related that on November 14, 2017 he made shift management aware of an 

agency email that had been circulated regarding mandatory training that was required of all 

employees. He forwarded the email to all supervisors, but never received a response from his 

captain or any other supervisors as to how officers could go about completing training. Appellant

alleged that the captain appeared physically angry that he had made the inquiry. He noted, like 

most instances, she became verbally combative in her responses. Appellant further alleged that he 

was retaliated against from making protected disclosures. 

Appellant also described a November 15, 2017 incident in which he was riding a Segway 

through the employing establishment parking lot and a civilian vehicle who appellant identified as 

a police sergeant intentionally pulled his vehicle out of a parking space, causing appellant to 

decelerate his vehicle to a near stop. He believed that this was done to intimidate and bully him 

and indicated that he had a genuine fear for his safety.

OWCP received a January 18, 2018 decision from the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC), which reversed prior dismissals of complaints made by appellant and 

remanded the claim for review.

In a fitness-for-duty evaluation request dated April 11, 2018, the employing establishment 

related that appellant’s condition of panic attacks and uncontrollable anxiety impeded his ability 
3

to safely and appropriately respond to actual incidents and service calls required of police officers 

and thus, was not fit for duty.

By development letter dated April 19, 2018, OWCP informed appellant of the factual and 

medical evidence needed to support his claim. By separate letter of even date, it asked the 

employing establishment to comment regarding the accuracy of appellant’s allegations. OWCP 

afforded 30 days for response. 

In a duty status report (Form CA-17) dated April 20, 2018, Dr. Guido Rojas, a family 

medicine specialist, diagnosed anxiety and depression, and noted that appellant was able to return 

to work full time without restrictions.

In an attending physician’s report (Form CA-20) dated April 20, 2018, Dr. Rojas diagnosed 

hypertension, anxiety, insomnia, panic attacks, and depression. He checked a box marked “yes”

when asked whether he believed appellant’s condition to be caused or aggravated by his 

employment activities.

In a response to the questionnaire dated April 25, 2018, appellant indicated that a major 

factor that caused his condition to be exacerbated was management’s failure to act appropriately, 

and in a timely fashion, to his disclosures of alleged abuse. He noted that his mistreatment began 

in the later months of 2015 and occurred sporadically over time. Appellant related that he filed a 

number of complaints through the chain of command when he realized that he was disparately 

treated. He indicated that he filed two complaints.

In a memorandum dated May 5, 2018, J.M., appellant’s second level supervisor at the 

employing establishment, responded to OWCP’s April 19, 2018 request. He indicated that he 

could not testify to the veracity or accuracy of appellant’s allegations because he had limited 

knowledge and experience regarding allegations of employment-related emotional conditions. 

J.M. noted that there were no aspects of appellant’s employment that he perceived as stressful, but 

noted that appellant could have perceived an incident as stressful when two years ago he received 

disciplinary action as a result of sleeping while on duty. He related that, after this incident,

appellant was moved to a different squad, with a different supervisor, and had different work 

assignments in order to minimize any future conflicts between appellant and that supervisor. J.M.

further indicated that the work shortages experienced by the employing establishment had no direct 

effect on appellant, that appellant usually met/exceeded work expectations, and that he had no 

performance problems.

In a report dated May 31, 2018, Janice M. Shabe, a clinical psychologist, diagnosed chronic 

post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and moderate major depressive 

disorder. She opined that appellant’s conditions were related to his employment-related stress.

By decision dated September 21, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an emotional 

condition, finding that the evidence was not sufficient to establish a compensable factor of 

employment.
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 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 timely filed within the applicable 

time limitation period of FECA,2that 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.3 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.

4

To establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty, appellant must submit the 

following: (1) medical evidence establishing that he or she has an emotional or psychiatric 

disorder; (2) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused 

or contributed to the condition; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that the 

identified compensable employment factors are causally related to the emotional condition.5

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,

6

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 under FECA.7 

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

an emotional condition claim.8 Where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, 

he or she must substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence.9 Personal 

 

2 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

3

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

4 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

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

5 See M.R., Docket No. 18-0305 (issued October 18, 2018); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004).

6 S.B., Docket No. 18-1113 (issued February 21, 2019); see also 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

7 S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); see Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 137 (1999).

8 S.B., supra note 2; J.F., 59 ECAB 331 (2008).

9 G.G., Docket No. 18-0432 (issued February 12, 2019); M.D., 59 ECAB 211 (2007).
5

perceptions alone are insufficient to establish an employment-related emotional condition.10 On 

the other hand the disability 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.11

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

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.12 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.13 

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

examine the factual evidence of record to determine whether the employing establishment acted 

reasonably.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 his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. 

Appellant alleged that he sustained hypertension, stress, anxiety, depression, panic attacks, 

and insomnia as a result of several employment incidents and factors. The Board must initially 

review whether these alleged incidents and conditions of employment are compensable 

employment factors under the terms of FECA. The Board notes that appellant’s allegations do not 

pertain to his regular or specially assigned duties under Cutler.

17

 Rather, appellant has alleged 

abuse and harassment on the part of his supervisor. 

Appellant has attributed his emotional conditions to actions of his supervisor, including 

humiliation during a training exercise, and management’s failure to act upon receiving his 

complaints. As a general rule, a claimant’s reaction to administrative or personnel matters falls 

 

10 G.G., id.; Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001).

11 See P.B., Docket No. 17-1912 (issued December 28, 2018).

12 S.K., supra note 7; see Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990),

reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

13 S.K., id.; S.B., supra note 2; see William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

14 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); see Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).

15 S.B., supra note 2; Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003).

16 S.B., id.; Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001).

17 Supra note 2.
6

outside the scope of FECA.18 Absent evidence establishing error or abuse, a claimant’s 

disagreement or dislike of such a managerial action is not a compensable factor of employment.19 

With regard to the training exercise of January 29, 2018, appellant has not established that 

his assignment as a “casualty” and his Captain’s directive that he retrieve his gas mask for the 

exercise, rather than simulate wearing a gas mask were abusive. The Board has explained that a

dislike of the manner in which a supervisor carried out his or her duties is not compensable absent 

error or abuse.20 Appellant’s own confusion regarding the circumstances of this training scenario 

does not establish error or abuse by his supervisor. Similarly, his perception that the March 24, 

2018 training exercise could be abusive is not compensable as appellant did not participate in this 

event. The perception of mistreatment, let alone the perception of possible mistreatment, is not 

sufficient to establish a compensable work factor.21 

Appellant has also alleged that his complaints regarding inappropriate jokes were 

improperly handled. However, handling of complaints is an administrative function of the 

employer and not a duty of the employee.22 Appellant has not established a compensable factor 

of employment as he has not submitted corroborating evidence of error or abuse in this

administrative matter.23

The Board also finds that appellant submitted no evidence corroborating his 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.24 The parking lot incident appellant described as occurring on 

November 15, 2017 when he was riding his Segway through the employing establishment is 

merely appellant’s unsubstantiated perception of harassment. In reviewing appellant’s statement, 

the Board finds that appellant has not provided evidence substantiating a specific incident of 

harassment. As he has not substantiated his allegations with probative evidence, appellant has not 

established a compensable employment factor under FECA with respect to the claimed 

harassment. 

Appellant also submitted a copy of the January 18, 2018 EEOC decision, which remanded 

his claim for further review. As the decision remanded appellant’s EEO claim for further action 

 

18 S.B., supra note 2; see Carolyn S. Philpott, 51 ECAB 175 (1999).

19 M.C., Docket No. 18-0585 (issued February 13, 2019); see Donney T. Drennon-Gala, 56 ECAB 469 (2005).

20 See L.K., Docket No. 16-1311 (issued January 17, 2017). 

21 See M.B., Docket No. 16-0917 (issued May 8, 2017). 

22 M.C., supra note 19; see Janet I. Jones, 47 ECAB 345, 347 (1996); Jimmy Gilbreath, 44 ECAB 555, 558 (1993);

Apple Gate, 41 ECAB 581, 588 (1990); Joseph C. DeDonato, 39 ECAB 1260, 1266-67 (1988).

23 Id.

24 B.L., Docket No. 18-0965 (issued November 19, 2018); Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991).
7

and therefore it did not establish error and abuse by the employing establishment. Thus, this 

decision does not establish a compensable employment factor under FECA.

Consequently, appellant has not established his claim for an emotional condition as he has 

not attributed his claimed condition to any compensable employment factors. The Board therefore 

does not need to consider the medical evidence of record.25

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 his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 21, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 28, 2019

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

25 See S.W., Docket No. 17-1016 (issued September 19, 2018); see G.S., Docket No. 09-0764 (issued 

December 18, 2009).