United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.L., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Duluth, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0603

Issued: September 16, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 18, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 4, 2022 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.2 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the February4, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. However, 

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 a stress-related 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 9, 2021 appellant, then a 53-year-old human resource labor clerk/city carrier 

associate, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained chronic stress on 

or about December 2, 2021 due to factors of her federal employment. 

The record reflects that, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx527, appellant also has an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) for an emotional condition with a June 1, 2020 date of 

onset.3

In the current claim, OWCP received a December 15, 2021 letter from Tonika D. Evans, a 

licensed professional counselor and therapist. Ms. Evans noted that appellant’s current work 

environment was hostile and presented challenges to appellant’s ability to complete her job tasks. 

She noted that appellant is denied entry to her place of employment and access to materials to 

fulfill her job duties. Ms. Evans noted that appellant was previously diagnosed with and treated 

for major depressive disorder recurrent episode moderate and generalized anxiety disorder. She 

opined that appellant’s current symptoms were consistent with those diagnoses.

In a January 4, 2022 email, appellant indicated that she would be filing a complaint against 

the employing establishment and OWCP concerning hostile retaliation. She indicated that she was 

not being paid continuation of pay (COP) since December 2, 2021 despite a valid diagnosis and 

that her claim was not being handled in a timely manner. Appellant alleged retaliation, harassment,

and unfair treatment from the employing establishment and OWCP. 

In medical reports dated June 2 and September 27, 2021, Dr. Olabisi P. Lane, a pain 

management specialist, diagnosed postlaminectomy syndrome, peripheral neuropathy, lumbar 

spondylosis, lumbar neuritis, anxiety, and depression.

In a development letter dated January 4, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim and requested that she submit additional factual and medical evidence, 

including a detailed description of the implicated work factors, which she alleged caused her 

“chronic stress and damage to her body” in addition to a well-rationalized report from her

physician regarding the cause of her emotional condition. It requested that she respond to the 

questions in an attached questionnaire and return it to OWCP. On the same date a development 

letter was sent to the employing establishment requesting a response to appellant’s allegations. 

OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

3 Appellant’s claims have not been administratively combined.
3

Appellant submitted an unsigned statement dated January 4, 2022 in which she indicated

that Ms. Evans was licensed and trained to treat individuals like herself who had anxiety and 

depression disorders. She disagreed that her job was that as a human resource labor clerk.

OWCP received a November 21, 2020 notification of postal personnel action (Form PS50), indicating that appellant’s position title was that of rural carrier associate; one page from an 

internet article concerning Ms. Evans; and one page of a September 17, 2021 email to appellant 

from P.M., inquiring whether appellant wanted to amend her complaint to include additional 

issues.

By decision dated February 4, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an employmentrelated emotional condition. It found that the factual evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that appellant actually experienced the employment incident(s) alleged to have occurred. 

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

defined by FECA.

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, that an injury was sustained while 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.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 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 

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.7

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment. 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 

4

See supra note 1.

5 A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019);Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); see T.O., Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

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

7

See S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014);

Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).
4

employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.8 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.9

In cases involving emotional conditions, the Board has held that, when working conditions 

are alleged as factors in causing a condition or disability, OWCP, as part of its adjudicatory 

function, must make findings of fact regarding which working conditions constitute compensable 

factors of employment and which working conditions are not deemed factors of employment and 

may not be considered.10 If a claimant does implicate a factor of employment, OWCP should then 

determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor. 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. 11

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant filed a traumatic injury claim on December 9, 2021 alleging chronic stress on or 

about December 2, 2021 due to factors of her federal employment. Evidence received in support 

of the claim referenced appellant’s prior claim and allegations in OWCP File No. xxxxxx527.

The record reflects that, under OWCP File No. xxxxxx527, appellant has an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) for an emotional condition with a June 1, 2020 date of onset. 

In OWCP File No. xxxxxx555 appellant alleged that she sustained further injury as she 

was entitled to payment of benefits in OWCP File No. xxxxxx527.

OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined when correct 

adjudication depends on cross-referencing between files and where two or more injuries occur to 

the same part of the body.12 For example, if a new injury case is reported for an employee who 

previously filed an injury claim for a similar condition or the same part of the body, doubling is 

required.13 In the instant case, appellant filed a traumatic injury claim for employment-related

anxiety and depression, arising from events also alleged in OWCP File No. xxxxxx527. The Board 

8 L.H., Docket No. 18-1217 (issued May 3, 2019); Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 

125 (1976).

9 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); GregorioE. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

10 L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020);see Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992).

11 Id.

12 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c) 

(February2000).

13 Id.; Order Remanding Case, L.G., Docket No. 18-1676 (issued August 22, 2019);Order Remanding Case, D.L., 

Docket No. 17-1588 (issued January 28, 2019).
5

notes that her prior claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx527 also involved a claim for employmentrelated emotional conditions. However, appellant’s claims have not been administratively 

combined.

For a full and fair adjudication, this case shall be remanded to OWCP to administratively

combine the current case record, OWCP File No. xxxxxx555, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx527

along with appellant’s other emotional or stress-related condition claims.

14

 Following this and 

other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.15

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 4, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and this case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: September 16, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

14 See Order Remanding Case, C.Y., Docket No. 20-1079 (issued December 7, 2020); Order Remanding Case, K.T., 

Docket No. 17-0432 (issued August17, 2018).

15 See Order Remanding Case, T.L., Docket No. 18-0935 (issued February 25, 2020); Order Remanding Case, T.M., 

Docket No. 18-0887 (issued February 21, 2019).