United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.S., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

BROCKTON VA MEDICAL CENTER, 

Brockton, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0184

Issued: July 14, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On November 19, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 13, 2020 merit decision 

and an August 20, 2020 nonmerit 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 appellant submitted additional evidence on appeal. 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

ISSUES

The issues are: (1) whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged; and (2) whether OWCP properly denied 

appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 13, 2020 appellant, then a 58-year-old advanced medical support assistant, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed stress and anxiety due to 

factors of her federal employment. She explained that answering telephone calls and e-mails,

retrieving messages off of the telephone, making charts, answering the door and questions from 

worried employees, and assisting nurses and nurse practitioners overwhelmed her to the point of 

crying. Appellant indicated that she first became aware of her condition and realized it was caused 

or aggravated by factors of her federal employment on March 23, 2020. On the reverse side of the 

claim form, the employing establishment noted that she stopped work on April 8, 2020 and 

returned to another duty station on April 13, 2020. 

In an April 20, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of 

her claim. It requested that she submit additional factual and medical evidence and provided a 

factual questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to submit the 

necessary evidence.

In an April 8, 2020 letter, Dr. Landis Mitchner, a psychiatrist, noted that he had seen 

appellant on that day and diagnosed an acute adjustment disorder with mixed disturbances of mood 

and anxiety, secondary to overwhelming occupational stressors at the employing establishment in 

the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. He excused appellant from work from April 8 through 

13, 2020. In a progress report of even date, Dr. Sucheta J. Doshi, a family practice specialist, noted 

that appellant reported that she was overwhelmed by work and her personal life. She indicated 

that appellant had been covering the employing establishment’s occupational health clinic for the 

past two weeks. Dr. Doshi diagnosed severe anxiety regarding COVID-19 pandemic work 

overload. In separate report of even date, Nancy Gendreau, a nurse practitioner, recommended 

appellant remain off work for the next five days. 

In an April 30, 2020 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant asserted 

that she was asked to cover the occupational health clinic by herself on March 23, 2020 when her 

coworker was on leave. She noted that she worked there until April 8, 2020. Appellant contended 

that the clinic was busy due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She alleged that she became very 

overwhelmed and started crying and shaking uncontrollably due to the carrying out of her work 

duties. Appellant explained that she was required to handle a high volume of telephone calls from 

employees who were either sick with symptoms or wanted results from COVID-19 testing, as well 

as high volumes of e-mails, faxing, and scanning. She detailed her other duties including triaging

telephone calls to nurses, scheduling telephone visits, making charts for new employees, and 

entering schedules on the computer. Appellant asserted that she thought she was having a nervous 

breakdown and that her work responsibilities were too overwhelming by herself. She also 

indicated that she was worried for her family during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
3

In a May 13, 2020 e-mail, C.M., appellant’s supervisor, noted that appellant was hired for 

her position because of her experience with the occupational health clinic and that she served as a 

backup to her coworker, who was made to quarantine at home, temporarily making appellant the 

main clerk. He indicated that everyone in general was under a great deal of stress at work, more 

than usual, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. C.M. noted that he was unaware of appellant working 

overtime.

On May 19, 2020 the employing establishment controverted appellant’s claim. 

OWCP subsequently received a position description for a medical support assistant.

In a May 26, 2020 development letter, OWCP requested a response from the employing 

establishment regarding appellant’s allegations. It afforded the employing establishment 30 days 

to provide the requested information.

In a May 26, 2020 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Marcin Sprycha, Boardcertified in family practice, indicated that appellant sustained severe anxiety and depression as a 

result of work environment. He checked a box marked “Yes” indicating that the diagnosed 

conditions were caused or aggravated by the described employment activity. 

On May 29, 2020 appellant filed another Form CA-2 alleging that she developed severe 

anxiety and depression due to factors of her federal employment. 

In an undated statement, appellant reiterated that she felt overwhelmed from carrying out 

her work duties, which included dealing with a high volume of telephone calls, answering e-mails, 

faxing, scanning, triaging telephone calls to the nurses, scheduling telephone visits, making charts 

for the new employees, and entering all their information into the computer. She contended that 

she had a breakdown on April 8, 2020 at 8:00 a.m., when she felt overwhelmed and started crying 

and shaking uncontrollably. Appellant asserted that she was again asked to cover the occupational 

health clinic on May 15, 2020. She explained that this request caused her to be nervous. Appellant 

contended that she did not like working at the clinic as it made her sad and depressed. She alleged 

that she had not been sleeping or eating well in fear of having to go back to the clinic. 

In a June 24, 2020 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, the employing 

establishment acknowledged that appellant became visibly upset and was crying when her 

supervisor asked her to temporarily cover the occupational health clinic. It noted that while there 

was a particularly large volume of telephone calls, there were no deadlines or quotas that needed 

to be met, and that there were additional staffing resource added to handle the high volume. The 

employing establishment indicated that appellant had no reported conflict with her coworkers or 

supervisor. It contended that no extra demands were placed on appellant, who performed her 

required duties and met expectations. 

In a June 3, 2020 follow-up statement, C.M., contended that although appellant had no 

deadlines or quotas to meet, the volume of telephone calls significantly increased a lot because the 

occupational health clinic was appointed as the point of contact for COVID-19-related issues. He 

noted that appellant had no conflict with her coworkers and that there were no issues with her 

performance. C.M. indicated his belief that “the work situation was overwhelming for 

[appellant].”
4

In a June 3, 2020 e-mail, an unidentified coworker noted that appellant’s job was to cover 

the program support when the regular clerk was absent. The coworker explained that appellant’s 

work duties included answering the telephone, taking messages and giving them to providers, and 

scanning and faxing documents. The coworker contended that appellant always disliked working 

in the occupational health clinic and became visibly angry as she was performing her duties at the 

clinic. The coworker asserted that on April 8, 2020 appellant started shaking and crying. The 

coworker explained that the clinic was busy, but that everyone was just as busy, and their tasks 

were divided as much as possible. The coworker alleged that no one placed extra pressure on 

appellant, but certain tasks were given with a timeframe for when they needed to be completed. 

The coworker contended that appellant could have asked for help from the labor pool, but did not.

The coworker noted that appellant was again asked to cover the clinic about a week prior, which 

she initially refused as she stated that she did not feel comfortable working at the clinic. 

In a June 4, 2020 follow-up statement, the unidentified coworker again noted that they had 

a labor pool that helped with the calls and filled in when appellant was out of the office or needed 

help. The coworker also contended that several suggestions were made to appellant to make things 

easier for her, but she had refused them. The coworker reported that appellant still got along with 

everyone.

In a June 4, 2020 e-mail, another unidentified coworker noted that the workload and 

volume did increase as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The coworker asserted that due to the 

increase of workload, the employing establishment was given additional staff from the labor pool 

to help with overflow. The coworker contended that there were no deadlines or quotas that needed 

to be met by appellant. The coworker explained that the volume of telephone calls increased while 

face-to-face visits were stopped. The coworker noted that appellant had a clerical backup at the 

other sites and had the ability to forward the telephone lines to other campuses if she felt 

overwhelmed. 

In a June 4, 2020 e-mail, another unidentified coworker described appellant’s work duties 

and noted that there was a significant increase in the number of telephone calls to be triaged, but 

significantly fewer in-person visits in the clinic as face-to-face visits were being reserved for workrelated injuries only. The coworker contended that there was a particularly large volume of 

telephone calls, where messages were constantly being taken, which could be perceived as stressful 

for appellant. 

In a June 8, 2020 e-mail, another unidentified coworker contended that everyone’s roles at 

the employing establishment were adjusted to manage the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The coworker explained that the pandemic generally decreased most of the duties because all 

services were shut down and many employees were teleworking. The coworker indicated that 

appellant’s workload decreased in most areas with the exception of answering the telephone, 

taking messages, or scanning documents. The coworker noted that there were many calls initially,

but that eventually more employees were assigned to the clinic to assist in the same tasks as 

appellant, which distributed the workload quite fairly. The coworker asserted that other than the 

normal stress that the country was feeling regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the work 

environment felt quite manageable. The coworker alleged that several suggestions were made for 

appellant to handle the telephone, including putting the posted messages on the table and letting 

providers get their own and working as well as working on her pace. The coworker indicated that 
5

she previously got along with everyone at work. The coworker noted that on April 8, 2020 

appellant was visibly upset and crying, with her voice getting louder.

By decision dated July 13, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an employmentrelated emotional condition, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the 

factual component of fact of injury. It noted that she failed to provide documenting evidence, such 

as witness statements, to establish the alleged incidents. OWCP concluded, therefore, that the 

requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

On August 14, 2020 appellant requested reconsideration and resubmitted the May 26, 2020 

Form CA-20 and her position description. 

By decision dated August 20, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration 

of the merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

LEGAL PRECEDENT -- ISSUE 1

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including 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 of FECA,4that 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.5 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.6

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

following: (1) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused 

or contributed to the condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or she has an emotional 

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 an employee’s employment.8 There are situations where an injury or illness 

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

 

3 Supra note 1.

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

153 (1989).

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988).

6 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April 25, 2019); 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).

7 W.F., Docket No. 18-1526 (issued November 26, 2019); C.V., Docket No. 18-0580 (issued September 17, 2018); 

George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004); Kathleen D. Walker, 42 ECAB 603 (1991).

8 L.Y., Docket No. 18-1619 (issued April 12, 2019); L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007).
6

coverage under FECA.9 When disability results from an emotional reaction to regular or specially 

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

compensable.10 However, disability is not compensable when it results from factors such as an 

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

particular environment or to hold a particular position.11

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

condition claim.12 Where the claimant alleges compensable factors of employment, he or she must 

substantiate such allegations with probative and reliable evidence.13 Personal perceptions alone 

are insufficient to establish an employment-related emotional condition, and disability is not 

covered where it results from such factors 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.14

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.15 Where 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.16

ANALYSIS -- ISSUE 1

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

 

9 W.F., Docket No. 17-0640 (issued December 7, 2018); David Apgar, 57 ECAB 137 (2005).

10 Pamela D. Casey, 57 ECAB 260, 263 (2005); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125, 129 (1976). In the case of Lillian 

Cutler, the Board explained that there are distinctions as to the type of employment situations giving rise to a 

compensable emotional condition under FECA. 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. On the other hand, when an injury 

or illness results from an employee’s feelings of job insecurity per se, fear of a reduction-in-force or his or her 

frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment, unhappiness with doing work, or frustration 

in not given the work desired, or to hold a particular position, such injury or illness falls outside FECA’s coverage 

because they are found not to have arisen out of employment.

11 Lillian Cutler, id.

12 A.R., Docket No. 18-0930 (issued June 5, 2020); L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020); A.C., 

Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018).

13 L.S., id.; G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018).

14 M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019); see also A.C., supra note 12.

15 C.V., supra note 7.

16 Id.
7

Appellant attributed her emotional condition in part to Cutler17 factors. She alleged that 

she felt overwhelmed by her work duties when she was assigned to cover the employing 

establishment’s occupational health clinic for a coworker who was on leave. Appellant asserted 

that her duties included answering and triaging an increased volume of telephone calls, as well as

answering e-mails, faxing, scanning, scheduling telephone visits, making charts for the new 

employees, entering information into the computer, and assisting nurses and nurse practitioners. 

She contended that the clinic was busy with a high volume of telephone calls due to the COVID19 pandemic. Appellant alleged that she ultimately experienced an emotional breakdown on 

April 8, 2020 at work. 

The Board finds that, as to appellant’s allegation that she sustained an emotional condition 

due to overwork based upon her regular and specially assigned job duties, appellant has established 

a compensable work factor under Cutler.

18

 The case record contains evidence, particularly the 

statements of appellant’s immediate supervisor, C.M., which demonstrate that, since the COVID19 pandemic, although appellant had no deadlines or quotas to meet, the volume of telephone calls 

significantly increased and, in C.M.’s own words, “the situation was overwhelming for her.” She 

further indicated that there were no issues with her performance, stating that “to her it felt that she 

was riding in the back of an airplane, its wing catches fire the [pilot] passes out and she is now 

expected to land the plane safely.” In a June 4, 2020 statement, an unidentified coworker 

contended that there was a particularly large volume of telephone calls, where messages were 

constantly being taken, which could be perceived as stressful for appellant. It is further established, 

through statements from appellant’s unidentified coworkers, that, given her workload, additional 

staffing resources were added to handle the high volume due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The Board further finds that the case record contains evidence showing that the workload 

and volume of telephone calls, as well as faxing and scanning documents, did increase as a result 

of the COVID-19 pandemic while face-to-face visits were stopped or decreased. It is also 

established that after working at the clinic for approximately two weeks, appellant ultimately 

became visibly upset on April 8, 2020 at work, crying and shaking uncontrollably. The Board has 

held that conditions related to stress from situations in which an employee is trying to meet his or 

her positions requirements are compensable.19 Further, the Board has held that overwork is a 

compensable factor of employment if appellant submits sufficient evidence to substantiate this 

allegation.20 As appellant attributed her emotional condition, in part, to the stress of trying to meet 

the duties of her position, including answering and triaging the increased volume of telephone calls

due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board, thus, finds that appellant has established a 

compensable employment factor of overwork. On remand OWCP shall consider the medical 

evidence with regard to whether she has established a diagnosed emotional condition casually 

related to this accepted employment factor of overwork.

 

17 Supra note 6.

18 Id.

19 E.A., Docket No. 19-0582 (issued April 22, 2021); K.J., Docket No. 17-1851 (issued September 25, 2019); P.W., 

Docket No. 08-0315 (issued August 22, 2008); Jeral R. Gray, 57 ECAB 611 (2006).

20 W.F., supra note 7; J.E., Docket No. 17-1799 (issued March 7, 2018).
8

Appellant has also alleged stress and anxiety due to actions by her supervisor and other 

management officials. In this regard, she contended that she was assigned to cover the 

occupational health clinic by herself initially on March 23, 2020 and then again on May 15, 2020 

despite her initial refusal. Mere disagreement or dislike of actions taken by a supervisor will not 

be compensable absent evidence establishing error or abuse.21 Further, an employee’s reaction to 

an administrative or personnel matter is not covered by FECA, unless there is evidence that the 

employing establishment acted unreasonably.22 Because appellant has not presented sufficient 

evidence to establish that her supervisor acted unreasonably or that the employing establishment 

engaged in error or abuse in these personnel matters, she has failed to identify a compensable work 

factor relating to this allegation.

23

 

As noted above, the Board finds that appellant has established a compensable employment 

factor with regard to her claim of overwork based upon her regular and specially assigned job 

duties, appellant has established a compensable work factor under Cutler. Accordingly, OWCP 

must analyze the medical evidence to determine whether she sustained an emotional condition as 

a result of this compensable employment factor. The case will, therefore, be remanded to OWCP. 

After this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo

decision.24

CONCLUSION

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

 

21 R.B., Docket No. 19-1256 (issued July 28, 2020); D.J., Docket No. 16-1540 (issued August 21, 2018); Linda 

Edwards-Delgado, 55 ECAB 401 (2004).

22 Id.; see also Alfred Arts, 45 ECAB 530 (1994).

23 Id. See also B.G., Docket No. 18-0491 (issued March 25, 2020).

24 In light of the Board’s disposition of Issue 1, Issue 2 is rendered moot.
9

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 20 and July 13, 2020 decisions of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are reversed and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: July 14, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board