United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.H., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ROCKY MOUNT 

CARRIER ANNEX, Rocky Mount, NC, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0658

Issued: September 1, 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

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 11, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 21, 2021 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 her burden of proof to establish an emotional

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 3, 2020 appellant, then a 55-year-old city carrier, filed a traumatic injury claim

(Form CA-1) alleging that on June 30, 2020 she developed anxiety, depression, headaches, chest 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

wall strain, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) while in the performance of duty. She

indicated that Postmaster B.C. called her into his office, swore at her, and jumped out of his chair 

as if he was going to hit her. On the reverse side of the claim form, Postmaster B.C. indicated that 

there was an argument between himself and appellant, but controverted that she sustained any 

injury. Appellant stopped work on July 2, 2020 and returned to work on July 3, 2020.

In a report dated July 2, 2020, Dr. Celeste Good, a psychiatrist, opined that employment

incidents on May 28, 20192 and June 30, 2020 had “added to” to appellant’s PTSD symptoms. 

She opined that appellant was capable of returning to work, but recommended that appellant be 

permitted to take 15-minute breaksorleave work and take her medication if her stress level became 

overwhelming, come to work early if needed, and wear headphones while casing mail to block out 

extraneous noise. 

In a statement dated July 8, 2020, Postmaster B.C. indicated that on June 30, 2020 he 

requested that appellant meet with him in his office after he observed her come into work early 

without authorization carrying parcels that had not been delivered. He related that he questioned 

her regarding unauthorized overtime and whether she had delivered any packages that morning. 

Postmaster B.C. indicated that appellant began arguing with him and used profanity, stating that 

he should be worried about other employees who “do n[o]t do [sh*t].” He responded by saying

“You do n[o]t do [sh*t], you delivered no packages in the two hours you were here.” Postmaster 

B.C. indicated that appellant then stood up, leaned over his desk, and started swearing at him in 

his face, and told him to do his job and address other employees that “were n[o]t doing [sh*t].” 

He then stood up and instructed her to leave his office. Postmaster B.C. further noted that, a union 

representative, J.M., was present for the meeting. 

In an undated statement, T.S., appellant’s coworker, indicated that she heard appellant 

swearing, shouting, and stating that she was going “to get rid of” Postmaster B.C. “just like we got 

rid of” a prior Postmaster. 

In a July 16, 2020 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical 

evidence necessary to establish her claim and attached a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence.

OWCP thereafter received a statement by appellant dated July 1, 2020, who indicated that,

on June 30, 2020 she came in early to run parcels before she cased her route, and when she loaded 

her parcels and headed to the route, it began to rain heavily. Appellant returned to the annex with 

the parcels and learned that her coworker, E.M., was carrying her route that day, so she offered to 

help her case the route. She related that, while she was casing the route, Postmaster B.C. asked 

her to come into his office with union steward J.M. Appellant noted that he questioned who had 

instructed her to come to work early, and she responded that her supervisor, B.K., told her that she 

could come in early to run parcels. She further related that Postmaster B.C. told her that she was 

only permitted to come in early on Mondays, and she responded that no other supervisor had 

advised her that she could only come in early on Mondays. He then asked appellant about carrying 

2 On May 31, 2019 appellant filed a claim for a May 28, 2019 traumatic injury resulting in PTSD, anxiety, 

depression, and migraines. OWCP denied the claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx738. It assigned the present 

traumatic injury claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx911. Appellant’s claims have not been administratively combined.
3

parcels, and she indicated that she attempted to explain the events of that morning, but he 

interrupted her and yelled “You have n[o]t done [sh*t]!” and “You do n[o]t do a [f*cking] thing, 

you do n[o]t do [sh*t], what the [f*ck] do you do.” Appellant related that Postmaster B.C. was 

angry and jumped out of his chair and leaned toward her as if to hit her. She indicated that she felt 

chest pains, became afraid, nervous, and anxious, and began crying, shaking, and yelling. 

Appellant noted that Postmaster B.C. told her to leave the office, and they were both yelling at 

each other as she left. She related that she then went to the employing establishment’s main office

and contacted a human resources (HR)specialist about how Postmaster B.C. treated her. Appellant

noted that she felt Postmaster B.C. had been verbally abusive and this caused her PTSD and 

depression to flare up resulting in her missing time from work. 

OWCP thereafter received an undated statement by appellant’s coworker E.M., who 

indicated that on June 30, 2020 appellant had offered to help her case mail. 

In a statement dated July 7, 2020, J.M. indicated that he observed the meeting between 

appellant and Postmaster B.C. on June 30, 2020. He noted that Postmaster B.C. advised her that 

she was no longer permitted to come to work early and questioned her productivity. J.M. indicated 

that, when appellant tried to answer, Postmaster B.C. interrupted her and yelled “You have n[o]t 

done [sh*t]!” He noted that she responded calmly, but Postmaster B.C. then jumped out of his 

chair and leaned forward toward her and yelled and cursed at her again. J.M. noted that appellant 

then began arguing and cursing, and Postmaster B.C. told her to leave his office. 

In reports dated July 6 and August 10, 2020, Dr. Good reiterated her prior 

recommendations. 

In a further statement dated August 11, 2020, J.M. indicated that he had prior discussions 

with Postmaster B.C. regarding the prior Postmaster, who had constantly yelled at employees, 

including appellant. He indicated that he had advised Postmaster B.C. that she was a good worker 

if left alone and allowed to work as her medical file instructed from her physician. 

In a narrative report dated August 12, 2020, Dr. Good noted that appellant had a prior 

diagnosis of PTSD and major depression and had difficulty tolerating stressful events, loud noises, 

and conflict. She noted that she related that appellant had an increase in migraine headaches, 

intrusive thoughts, isolation, irritability, weight gain, fatigue, and poor grooming since the June 30, 

2020 incident. Dr. Good diagnosed an exacerbation of PTSD and depression and recommended 

that appellant remain out of work until August 16, 2020. She opined that she anticipated that 

appellant would return to her baseline by September 30, 2020. 

By decision dated August 21, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim, 

finding that she had not established a compensable factor of employment as causing or contributing 

to her diagnosed emotional condition. Consequently, it found that she had not met the 

requirements to establish an injury as defined by FECA. 

OWCP continued to receive evidence, including an emergency room report dated July 1, 

2020 by Dr. John W. Surles, Board-certified in emergency medicine, who noted that appellant 

related complaints of midsternal chest pain after an incident at work on June 30, 2020. Dr. Surles 

noted that she indicated that she felt physically threatened by her supervisor, and that he had cursed 

at her. He performed a physical examination and documented anterior chest wall tenderness with 
4

palpation. Dr. Surles noted that computerized tomography scans of appellant’s head and x-rays of 

her chest were normal. He diagnosed chest wall pain, acute nonintractable headache, and an 

anxiety reaction. 

In a report dated April 20, 2021, Dr. Good excused appellant from work on April 13, 14, 

19, and 20, 2021, and cleared her to return to work on April 21, 2021. She reiterated her prior 

recommendations, but also noted that appellant was unable to deliver her route and may only case 

her own route. Dr. Good again opined that appellant had not recovered from injuries sustained on 

May 28, 2019 or June 30, 2020, and that each additional incident added to her PTSD symptoms. 

On August 9, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s August 21, 2020 

decision. 

OWCP thereafter received an undated statement by B.R., an employing establishment 

custodian, who indicated that she observed appellant in front of the building crying and very upset

after Postmaster B.C. cursed at her and jumped at her like he was going to hit her. 

In a further statement dated October 15, 2020, J.M. indicated that Postmaster B.C. initiated 

a verbal assault on appellant, stood up, and used obscenities. He noted that, at a later time, 

Postmaster B.C. apologized for his actions. 

In a report dated December 7, 2020, Dr. Good again noted that same recommendations and 

also that appellant should not be assigned to park and loop. 

In a statement dated March 1, 2021, appellant’s coworker, V.H., indicated that in 

June 2020 she heard yelling coming from Postmaster B.C.’s office and then heard him yell at 

appellant to get out of his office and she yelled back at him not to curse at her again. She observed 

appellant crying and noted that she was visibly shaken. 

In a statement dated April 2, 2021, appellant indicated that she reviewed Postmaster B.C.’s 

July 8, 2020 statement and disagreed that she started the argument. She related that he started 

using profanity and arguing with her and she tried to remain calm, but when he continued to curse 

at her, she cursed back at him at which point he jumped out of his chair and leaned over his desk 

as if he was going to hit her so she panicked and stood up from her chair. B.C. then yelled at 

appellant to leave his office, which she did. 

In a report dated May 5, 2021, Dr. Good reiterated her prior opinions and excused appellant 

from work for one-half of that day. 

In reports dated July 14 and 29, 2021, Dr. Good noted thatthe same prior recommendations 

and excused appellant from work from July 27 through 29, 2021 and recommended that she be 

permitted to start early and take extra breaks as needed due to the heat. 
5

In a letter dated August 19, 2021, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim and noted that she had filed prior claims for stress, anxiety, and chest wall strain.3

By decision dated September 21, 2021, OWCP denied modification of its August 21, 2020 

decision. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has 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,5that 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.6 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.7

To establish a claim for an emotional condition in the performance of duty, an employee 

must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying employment factors or incidents alleged to have 

caused or contributed to his or her condition; (2) medical evidence establishing that he or she has 

an emotional or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing 

that the identified compensable employment factors are causally related to his or her emotional 

condition.8 

3 Appellanthas previously accepted traumatic injury claims for emotional conditions as follows: January 23, 2002 

claim for depressive reaction under OWCP File No. xxxxxx869; June30, 2004 claim for PTSD (mild), major 

depressive disorder (recurrent without psychotic features) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx914; May 27, 2005 for acute 

reaction to stress under OWCP File No. xxxxxx864; and October 31, 2005 for major depressive disorder (severe, 

without psychotic features) under OWCP File No. xxxxxx227. By decision dated September 11, 2009, OWCP 

terminated her entitlement to medical and wage-loss compensation benefits for the October 31, 2005 claim. In 

addition to the May 28, 2019 claim under OWCP File No. xxxxxx738, appellant has previously denied claims for 

emotional conditions as follows: August16, 2000 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx189; May15, 2007 under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx268, August13, 2008 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx323, December 5, 2011 under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx116, March 9, 2012 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx479, April27, 2012 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx916, 

September 18, 2012 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx936, February 25, 2014 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx978, July30, 

2014 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx674, July 18, 2015 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx344, December 16, 2016 under 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx553, January 17, 2017 under OWCP File No. xxxxxx680, and April 10, 2017 under OWCP 

File No. xxxxxx260.

4

Supra note 1.

5 F.H., Docket No.18-0869 (issued January 29, 2020); J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued December 13, 2019); 

Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

6 L.C., Docket No. 19-1301 (issued January 29, 2020); J.H., Docket No. 18-1637 (issued January 29, 2020); 

James E.Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

7 P.A., Docket No. 18-0559 (issued January 29, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

DeloresC.Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

8 R.B., Docket No. 19-0343 (issued February 14, 2020).
6

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,

9

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 of FECA.10 

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.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

 

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

employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than regular or specially assigned 

work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA.14 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. 15

Verbal altercations and difficult relationships with supervisors/managers, when 

sufficiently detailed and supported by the record, may constitute compensable factors of 

employment.16 However, this does not imply that every ostensibly abusive or threatening 

statement uttered in the workplace will give rise to coverage under FECA. For appellant to prevail 

on his or her claim, he or she must support his or her allegations with probative and reliable 

evidence.17 

9

28 ECAB 125 (1976).

10 M.R., Docket No. 18-0305 (issued October 18, 2018); Robert W. Johns, 51 ECAB 136 (1999).

11 D.I., Docket No. 19-0534 (issued November 7, 2019); T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019).

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

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

14 C.V., Docket No. 18-0580 (issued September 17, 2018).

15 K.W., Docket No. 20-0832 (issued June 21, 2022); A.B., Docket No. 18-0635 (issued August 14, 2020); DavidC. 

Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263, 268 (2005); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 

566 (1991).

16 J.M., Docket No. 16-0717 (issued January 12, 2017); L.M., Docket No. 13-0267 (issued November 15, 2013).

17 Y.J., Docket No. 15-1137 (issued October 4, 2016) (allegations of verbal abuse must be surrounded by specificity 

in order to more appropriately gauge the context in which they were made).
7

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.18

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant has not attributed her emotional condition to the performance of her regular or 

specially assigned duties under Cutler.

19

 Rather she has alleged that she sustained an emotional 

condition as a result of a hostile work environment, harassment, and abuse by Postmaster B.C. in 

the meeting in his office on June 30, 2020. OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim 

on the grounds that she did not establish any compensable employment factors. The Board must, 

thus, initially review whether these alleged incidents and conditions of employment are covered 

employment factors under the terms of FECA.20 

Specifically, appellant asserted that on June 30, 2020 Postmaster B.C. yelled at her, used 

profanity conversing with her, and stood up and leaned toward her in a manner that made her feel 

physically threatened. Postmaster B.C. acknowledged the verbal altercation between them, but 

claimed that appellant initiated it by arguing, yelling, and swearing at him first. J.M., a union 

representative who was present for the meeting, prepared several statements confirming that 

Postmaster B.C. initiated the verbal altercation by getting out of his chair and interrupting, yelling,

and swearing at appellant. As noted above, verbal altercations and difficult relationships with 

supervisors/managers, when sufficiently detailed and supported by the record, may constitute 

compensable factors of employment.21 The Board finds that appellant has provided reliable and 

probative evidence in the form of multiple witness statements with respect to her allegations of a 

hostile work environment, harassment, and abuse, specifically Postmaster B.C. standing up, 

yelling, and swearing at her during the meeting on June 30, 2020. Thus, appellant has established 

a compensable employment factor.22

As appellant has established a compensable employment factor, OWCP must base its

decision on analysis of the medical opinion evidence with regard to causal relationship. The Board 

will therefore set aside OWCP’s September 21, 2021 decision and remand the case for OWCP to 

review the medical evidence as it relates to the accepted compensable factor of employment. 

18 See C.M., Docket No. 17-1076 (issued November 14, 2018); NormaL. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90(1992). 

Unless a claimant establishes a compensable factor of employment, it is unnecessary to address the medical evidence 

of record. T.G., Docket No. 19- 0071 (issued May 28, 2019); Garry M. Carlo, 47 ECAB 299, 305 (1996); Margaret S. 

Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-03(1992).

19 Supra note 9.

20 S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

21 Supra note 16.

22 Id.; S.F., Docket No. 20-0249 (issued December 31, 2020).
8

Furthermore, OWCP’s procedures provide that cases should be administratively combined 

when correct adjudication of the issues depends on frequent cross-referencing between files.23 

Therefore, on remand OWCP should also consider whether the correct adjudication of the issues 

would require that it administratively combine the current case record with any of appellant’s prior 

emotional condition claims, as noted above.

24

 

Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue 

a de novo decision on appellant’s traumatic injury claim.

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 21, 2021 decision of the Office of 

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

with this decision of the Board.

Issued: September 1, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

(February2000).

24 Id. at Chapter 2.400.8(c)(1); W.W., Docket No. 19-0884 (issued June16, 2020); L.P., Docket Nos. 18-1558, 

18-1568 (issued June 21, 2019); L.S., Docket Nos. 17-1863, 17-1867, 17-1868 (issued April18, 2018); W.S., Docket 

No. 15-0969 (issued October 5, 2015); C.C., Docket No. 14-1576 (issued March 9, 2015).