United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF 

PRISONS, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION DUBLIN, Dublin, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1212

Issued: January 26, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On August 18, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 25, 2022 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 22-1212.

On June 9, 2022 appellant, then a 54-year-old social scientist, filed a traumatic injury claim 

(Form CA-1) alleging that on May 17, 2022 she sustained an injury when management informed 

her that all managers and supervisors were being reassigned. Management specifically advised 

her that her reassignment was out of state. Appellant stopped work on June 8, 2022 and returned 

to work on June 9, 2022. 

In a development letter dated June 14, 2022, OWCP advised appellant 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, it requested that the employ ing 

establishment provide additional information, including comments from a knowledgeable 

supervisor regarding the accuracy of her allegations, and information about the reason for the 

transfer. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to submit the requested evidence.
2

Appellant was treated on June 16, 2022 for adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and 

depressed mood by Janice Lynn Alley, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist. Dr. Alley held appellant 

off work from June 16 through 17, 2022. 

In a June 27, 2022 statement, appellant related that she had experienced a rapid heartbeat, 

nausea, and despair on May 17, 2022 after being told in a mandatory meeting that she was being 

reassigned to a work location in another state. She noted that her family had life-threatening 

medical issues that made relocation difficult. Appellant asserted that she had not been involved in 

the scandal that necessitated the relocation. 

T.R., a supervisor, indicated in an email that appellant’s position description provided that 

frequent relocation of supervisors and managers was necessary to meet the needs of the employing 

establishment.1 

By decision dated July 25, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury claim. It 

found that she had established the occurrence of the claimed May 17, 2022 employment incident 

and that she had a diagnosed medical condition. OWCP found, however, that the medical evidence 

was insufficient to establish a condition causally related to the accepted work incident of attending 

a mandatory meeting at work. 

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

FECA2 provides that OWCP shall determine and make findings of fact in making an award 

for or against payment of compensation after considering the claim presented by the employee and 

after completing such investigation as it considers necessary with respect to the claim. 3 The 

reasoning behind OWCP’s evaluation should be clear enough for the reader to understand the 

precise defect of the claim and the kind of evidence which would overcome it. 4

OWCP’s procedures provide that, in adjudicating emotional condition claims, the claims 

examiner should develop and analyze the identified employment factors.5 OWCP should 

distinguish between the alleged employment incidents and determine which in fact occurred,

which are considered factors of employment, and which are outside the scope of employment for 

purposes of compensation by outlining work-related and nonwork-related elements.6 These should 

be labeled as alleged events that are factors of employment, alleged events that are not factors of 

1 The date of the email is not legible.

2

5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq.

3

Id. at § 8124(a)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.126.

4 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5c (February 2013); see also 

M.N., Docket No. 20-0531 (issued May 7, 2021).

5

Id. at Chapter 2.804.17j (July 1997).

6

Id. at Chapter 2.809.5h (September 2009); R.B., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 20-0619 (issued May 24, 

2022); M.N.,supra note 4.
3

employment, and compensable factors which are not factually substantiated. 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 then base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence. 8

The Board finds that OWCP, in its July 25, 2022 decision, failed to discharge its 

responsibility to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant had established any 

compensable factors of employment prior to analyzing the medical evidence.9 The case will 

accordingly be remanded to OWCP to make proper findings of fact in accordance with its 

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

a de novo decision.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 25, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this order of the Board.

Issued: January 26, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

7

Id. 

8

See C.B., Docket No. 20-1259 (issued July 15, 2022); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 622 (2006).

9 M.N., supra note 4.