United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.J., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT, Santa Monica, CA, 

Employer

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0611

Issued: January 5, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Stephanie Leet, 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 17, 2022 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a February 23,

2022 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 causally related to the accepted compensable employment factors.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 21, 2020 appellant, then a 43-year-old air traffic controller, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained post-traumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD), agoraphobia, anxiety, and depression causally related to factors of her federal 

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

relationship to her federal employment on October 17, 2019. Appellant did not stop work. On 

the reverse side of the claim form, B.H., appellant’s supervisor, disagreed with appellant’s 

portrayal of the training environment at the employing establishment. Additionally, he 

contended that her allegations of stress involved administrative functions which were not 

compensable employment factors.

In a March 16, 2020 narrative statement, appellant noted that she filed a complaint with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March 2018, alleging reprisal 

tactics designed to impair her training progress and ability to work as a controller. She also 

alleged that she was subjected to unusually stressful and disturbing conditions compared to 

others in the same job. In May 2018, appellant developed PTSD symptoms, including panic 

attacks, night terrors, hyperventilating, headaches, vomiting, trembling, and sweating in addition 

to feelings of hopelessness, paranoia and hypervigilance as a result of her hostile work 

environment. She denied having any psychiatric conditions or treatment prior to the hostile work 

environment. Appellant alleged that in April 2018 D.C., her primary trainer, was openly hostile 

and aggressive toward her during training, when he yanked her headset plug from a radio console 

and demanded that she leave the tower. She reported the incident to R.R., an acting air traffic 

manager, who insisted that she continue to be trained by D.C. Appellant noted that D.C.’s erratic 

behavior continued for at least three months. She also reported her problem to her subsequent 

new supervisor, S.J. On June 15, 2018 appellant asked S.J. to move her away from D.C., but he 

threatened her by advising her to not make an enemy of him. She also complained to J.G., an air 

traffic manager, who did not respond. In July 2018, appellant complained to J.G. that she was 

unfairly treated by S.J. S.J. had delayed appellant’s certification and asked D.C. to write a 

derogatory letter about her to further delay her progress. On December 21, 2018 he physically 

barred her from the tower when she tried to start her shift and insisted that she talk to him 

without union representation regarding false infractions she had allegedly committed. S.J. 

blocked the stairway and did not allow appellant to sign in for her shift, punched his fist into his 

hand. After appellant’s repeated requests to stop, he moved away. In retaliation, she was written 

up by S.J. Appellant reported the incident to J.G. and asked him to remove S.J. from her training 

team, but J.G. denied her request. On February 16, 2019 S.J. assigned M.J. to appellant’s 

training team. M.J. berated and humiliated her resulting in a panic attack and her absence from 

work for four days. Management made appellant train with him for an additional four months

until June 2019 when she refused to continue to do so. Appellant reported M.J.’s actions to J.G. 

who did not remove him from her team until two months later. On August 16, 2019 K.W., a 

trainer, did not like a technique appellant was using and yelled at her while she was working 

traffic. Appellant adjusted, but he aggressively put his hand in her face and demanded that she 
3

stop talking and stand in a certain spot on the floor. She reported the incident to B.H. and J.H., 

but they wanted her to continue training with K.W. Shortly thereafter, J.H. suspended 

appellant’s training. On October 17, 2019 appellant participated in a Training Review Board. 

Although the Training Review Board subsequently found numerous anomalies in her training 

and noncompliance with the national training order, S.J. terminated her training. On 

November 7, 2019 he violated additional employing establishment policies by insisting that 

appellant work control positions to help with staffing and failing to submit employee records to 

the national employee service team until January 2020.

OWCP, in a development letter dated May 20, 2020, 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 questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development 

letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional 

information, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of 

appellant’s allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

In an undated response, received by OWCP on June 10, 2020, appellant attributed her 

emotional condition to several other incidents at work. She alleged that on April 9, 2018 she was 

monitoring C.H., an employee, by listening to him on the radio while wearing a headset in the 

tower. C.H. became upset with appellant when she did not respond to another employee’s 

nonwork-related question and also admonished and yelled at her and snatched her headset out of 

the console. Appellant reported the incident to R.R., the acting air traffic manager, who denied 

her request for a new trainer. On June 2, 2018 she refused to train with C.H. On June 24, 2018 

S.J. denied appellant’s request for a new trainer. Appellant asserted that her training was delayed 

for six months while no one else’s training was delayed for more than one week. On 

February 16, 2019 she witnessed M.J., a controller, yell at S.J. when he refused S.J.’s request for 

him to be on appellant’s training team. S.J. failed to take any action against M.J. for his conduct. 

On June 19, 2019 M.J. yelled at appellant during training and the incident was witnessed by S.J. 

who denied appellant’s July 1, 2019 request to immediately remove M.J. from her training team. 

M.J. was subsequently removed from her team in September 2019.

Appellant submitted evidence, including statements from managers and a trainer

regarding her training, complaints of discrimination and sexual harassment, and investigation of 

her inappropriate behavior on December 23, 2018.

Appellant also submitted medical evidence. In a June 4, 2020 progress note, Levon 

Margolin, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist, noted that appellant related her work-related 

stress to several incidents at work, including the employing establishment’s efforts to terminate 

her training and employment since October 2019. Dr. Margolin provided an assessment of 

recurrent, severe major depressive disorder without psychotic features. He recommended an

arising out of employment/course of employment (AOE/COE) evaluation to determine whether 

appellant’s case involved an industrial injury.

In an April 13, 2020 report, Valerie M. Susman, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist,

noted that appellant related that her emotional distress was due to several incidents at work, 

including being in a hostile work environment for the past four years and possibly six years at 

the employing establishment. Appellant related that she was lied on and verbally abused by her 
4

coworkers and falsely investigated and threatened with termination by management. She further 

related that she did not want to be around people and developed agoraphobia in August 2018. 

Dr. Susman diagnosed PTSD, single episode of moderate major depression, and panic disorder 

with agoraphobia. She opined that appellant’s psychological symptoms and deterioration in her 

ability to function were due to prolonged harassment which was condoned by management, 

noninclusion, verbal abuse, and investigations.

In a July 24, 2020 letter, D.D., an employing establishment manager, responded to 

OWCP’s May 20, 2020 development letter. He denied appellant’s allegations. D.D. noted that

appellant was informed in October/November 2019 that she did not successfully complete her 

training requirements after the conclusion of her Training Review Board. Appellant was also 

aware that her training failure would result in her separation from the employing establishment, 

which was effective June 6, 2020. D.D. noted that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) 

found that appellant’s removal was appropriate. He indicated that she received verbal counseling 

regarding the December 21, 2018 incident. D.D. concluded that the medical evidence submitted 

was also insufficient to establish appellant’s claim.

D.D. submitted witness statements in response to appellant’s allegations. In a July 13, 

2020 statement, R.R. related that he was aware that appellant and D.C. did not see eye to eye on 

some things, but his input was not required. He acknowledged that he insisted that D.C. remain 

on appellant’s training team because D.C. had a wealth of knowledge from the viewpoint of an 

air traffic controller and a pilot that was beneficial for her training needs.

In a June 29, 2020 memorandum, C.H., a district executive adviser, did not dispute that 

an interaction occurred between appellant and her trainer but, noted that appellant’s description 

of the interaction was inaccurate and a manager determined that further inquiry, investigation, or 

corrective action was warranted. She maintained that appellant’s behavior in December 2018 

warranted counseling.

In a supplemental letter dated September 21, 2020, D.D. continued to challenge

appellant’s claim and submitted additional evidence. In a September 18, 2020 memorandum, 

S.J. denied threatening appellant to not make an enemy of him regarding her request to remove

D.C. from her training team. He also denied physically barring her from entering the tower at 

the beginning of her shift and punching his fist into his hands in a menacing manner. S.J. further 

denied witnessing M.J. display aggressive, agitating, berating, and hostile behavior towards 

appellant. He noted that appellant’s allegation that K.W. yelled and displayed aggressive hand 

gestures toward her was investigated. B.H. witnessed the alleged incident and disagreed with her 

account. K.W.’s knowledge of the incident also conflicted with appellant’s account.

By decision dated November 4, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a compensable factor of 

her federal employment. It also found that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to 

establish that a diagnosed medical condition was causally related to the implicated employment 

factors. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an 

injury as defined by FECA.
5

On November 20, 2020 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of 

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

Following a preliminary review, by decision dated January 28, 2021, an OWCP hearing 

representative vacated the November 4, 2020 decision because OWCP failed to properly explain 

its findings in its November 4, 2020 decision. The hearing representative remanded the case to 

OWCP for an appropriate decision on appellant’s emotional condition claim and provided

detailed reasons for accepting or denying the claim.

By development letter dated January 29, 2021, OWCP requested that the employing 

establishment review the evidence of record, including appellant’s June 10, 2020 statement, and 

provide comments. 

In a February 15, 2021 letter, N.T., on behalf of the employing establishment, responded 

to appellant’s allegations. She referenced B.H.’s statement that, following a meeting with 

appellant on September 1, 2020, he granted her request to remove J.G. from her training team 

and replaced him with D.M. Appellant further referenced B.H.’s statements regarding 

appellant’s complaints against C.B. B.H. noted that on January 11, 2019 he witnessed appellant 

refuse to answer C.B.’s work-related question while in the tower. He met with appellant and 

C.B. and advised them to maintain professional standards.

By decision dated March 18, 2021, OWCP again denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish a compensable 

employment factor and, therefore, did not establish an injury as defined by FECA.

On April 8, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s 

Branch of Hearings and Review.

Following a preliminary review, by decision dated June 2, 2021, the prior OWCP hearing 

representative vacated the March 18, 2021 decision and remanded the case to OWCP to provide 

a clear decision and proper findings regarding whether appellant established compensable factors 

of employment.

In a June 16, 2021 letter, J.S., on behalf of the employing establishment, again

controverted appellant’s emotional condition claim.

By decision dated July 12, 2021, OWCP again denied appellant’s emotional condition 

claim, finding that she had not established a compensable employment factor.

On August 2, 2021 appellant requested an oral hearing before a representative of

OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. 

OWCP subsequently received an August 16, 2021 report by Angela M. HargrowAnthony, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist. Dr. Hargrow-Anthony indicated that appellant 

related that her stress and disability from work to several work incidents, including verbal 

harassment by coworkers and her trainers, being required to make decisions in time-sensitive and 

potentially life-threatening situations with understaffing, and failure to receive proper training. 
6

She diagnosed PTSD, panic disorder, and recurrent episode, severe major depressive disorder. 

Dr. Hargrow-Anthony opined that the diagnosed conditions resulted from ongoing, repeated, and 

severe workplace harassment while working in a high-stress understaffed environment and under 

excessive work demands. She recommended that appellant not return to work as an air traffic 

controller, or any other position related to air travel, given her extreme reactions to the thought of 

being near an airport. Additionally, Dr. Hargrow-Anthony noted that appellant’s symptoms 

made it incredibly difficult for her to think quickly, problem solve, and focus in stressful, time 

sensitive and/or life-threatening situations. 

Following a telephonic hearing held on December 9, 2021, OWCP received additional 

evidence, including an MSPB decision dated November 16, 2021. The MSPB found that the 

employing establishment failed to meet its burden of proof to establish, inter alia, that appellant 

received and completed the required training, she was notified of the applicable standards, her 

performance was unacceptable, it provided an accurate and reasonable assessment of her 

performance, and appropriately removed her from employment. It also found that appellant 

failed to meet her burden of proof to establish that she was subjected to discrimination based on 

race and/or retaliation for prior EEO activity. The MSPB ordered her reinstatement.

By decision dated February 23, 2022, OWCP’s hearing representative modified the 

July 12, 2021 decision to find that appellant had established compensable employment factors 

with respect to the employing establishment’s termination of her training in November 2019 and 

employment effective on June 6, 2020. However, the hearing representative denied the claim, 

finding that the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish causal relationship 

between appellant’s diagnosed medical conditions and the accepted compensable employment 

factors.

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 from work for which 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 in the performance of duty, a claimant must submit: 

(1) factual evidence identifying an employment factor or incident alleged to have caused or 

3

Id.

4

S.S., Docket No. 19-1021 (issued April21, 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 A.M., Docket No. 21-0420 (issued August 26, 2021); S.S.,id.; G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008);Elaine Pendleton, 40 

ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.115;A.M., id.; R.S., Docket No. 20-1307 (issued June 29, 2012); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 

(issued April 10, 2019); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).
7

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 identified compensable employment factors are causally related to 

the diagnosed emotional condition.7

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.8 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. 9

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.10 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. 11

ANALYSIS

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

condition causally related to the accepted compensable employment factors.

OWCP accepted that appellant had established as compensable factors of employment

that her training was improperly terminated in November 2019 and her employment was 

improperly terminated on May 28, 2020, while in the performance of duty. The issue, 

consequently, is whether the medical evidence of record is sufficient to establish that appellant 

sustained a diagnosed physical or emotional condition due to the accepted compensable 

employment factors.

In support of her claim, appellant submitted an April 13, 2020 report from Dr. Susman. 

Dr. Susman diagnosed PTSD, single episode of moderate major depression, and panic disorder 

with agoraphobia. She opined that the diagnosed conditions and deterioration in appellant’s

ability to function were due to prolonged harassment, which was condoned by management, noninclusion, verbal abuse, and investigations. In an August 16, 2021 report, Dr. Hargrow-Anthony 

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).

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

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

10 M.B., Docket No. 20-1160 (issued April 2, 2021); L.D., Docket No. 17-1581 (issued January 23, 2018);

Jacqueline M. Nixon-Steward, 52 ECAB 140 (2000).

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

345 (1989).
8

diagnosed PTSD, panic disorder, and recurrent episode, severe major depressive disorder. She 

opined that the diagnosed conditions resulted from ongoing, repeated, and severe workplace 

harassment while working in a high-stress understaffed environment and under excessive work 

demands. Dr. Hargrow-Anthony also addressed appellant’s work capacity. The Board finds that 

the reports of Dr. Susman and Dr. Hargrow-Anthony are of no probative value because neither 

physician provided an opinion on causal relationship between the diagnosed emotional 

conditions to the accepted compensable employment factors.12

Additionally, appellant submitted a June 4, 2020 report from Dr. Margolin, who provided 

an assessment of recurrent, severe major depressive disorder without psychotic features. While

Dr. Margolin noted that appellant had attributed her work-related stress to several incidents at 

work, he recommended an AOE/COE evaluation to determine whether her case involved an 

industrial injury. As Dr. Margolin offered no opinion on the causal relationship between the 

accepted compensable employment factors and appellant’s diagnosed conditions, the Board finds 

that his report is insufficient to establish her burden of proof.13

As appellant has not submitted reasoned medical evidence explaining how her diagnosed 

emotional condition was casually related to the accepted compensable employment factors, the 

Board finds that she has not met her burden of proof.

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 causally related to the accepted compensable employment factors.

12 See P.B., Docket No. 20-0124(issuedMarch10, 2021); A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019);

L.C., Docket No. 08-1655 (issued April2, 2009); L.B., Docket No. 18-0533 (issued August 27, 2018); D.K., Docket 

No. 17-1549 (issued July 6, 2018).

13 Id.
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 23, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: January 5, 2024

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