United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

LOGISTICS AGENCY, Quantico, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0639

Issued: May 10, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On March 25, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 28, 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 to consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On July 9, 2019 appellant, then a 52-year-old training manager, filed a traumatic injury 

claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on June 27, 2019 he sustained work-related stress while in the 

performance of duty. He alleged that he left his desk for a short walk to the main floor and sensed 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

a sudden overwhelming fear that he would soon pass out. Appellant felt his heart racing and 

throbbing head pain. He noted that he entered the cafeteria and asked bystanders to call 911. 

Appellant explained that he was taken to the emergency room via ambulance, where he was 

initially diagnosed with a panic attack, and subsequently on July 9, 2019 he was diagnosed with 

panic disorder. He stopped work on June 27, 2019.

A June 27, 2019 emergency room note from Dr. Stephen Balleh, an osteopath and 

emergency medicine specialist, related that appellant had a history of multiple chronic medical 

problems, presented with an occipital headache, had presented with similar episodes of headaches 

in the past, and “this is the first with a panic attack.” He diagnosed anxiety.

OWCP received May 6 and 23 and July 2, 2019 notes from a nurse practitioner who 

indicated that appellant was seen for panic disorder. 

OWCP received July 3 and 9, 2019 progress notes from Dr. Chandrasekhar Kommu,

Board-certified in family medicine, who indicated that appellant was disabled from work until 

July 23, 2019. 

OWCP received April 16, 2019 notes from Dr. Tania White, an emergency medical 

specialist, and April 25 and July 18, 2019 treatment notes from Dr. Michael Cohen, a Boardcertified neurologist, who treated appellant for headaches.

In a July 9, 2019 treatment note, Dr. Sandra Onyeagoro, a Board-certified psychiatrist,

noted appellant’s history of unspecified anxiety disorder and that on June 27, 2019 he had a severe 

panic attack, with a feeling of doom, fearful that he was going to die. She related that he had stress 

as a training manager with a lot of responsibilities, had started the job in March 2019, but had not 

worked since June 27, 2019, after he experienced a severe panic attack. Dr. Onyeagoro noted that 

appellant’s first panic attack occurred in April 2012, after his brother was killed in December 2011, 

and that appellant had been to the emergency department for panic attacks three time since 2011. 

She noted a history of mild depression, diagnosed panic disorder, and opined that appellant was 

disabled and unable to work. In a July 22, 2019 treatment note, Dr. Onyeagoro repeated her 

opinion that he was disabled and unable to work, and noted that she was unable to provide an 

opinion with regard to the cause of his disability as she did not know his job requirements.

By development letter dated July 25, 2019, OWCP advised appellant of the type of factual 

and medical evidence necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his 

completion. It afforded him 30 days to submit the requested evidence.

In an August 23, 2019 response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant alleged that when he 

started his current position on March 18, 2019 he first learned about the large, complex, and 

demanding transition that the employing establishment would be undergoing by October 1, 2019. 

He explained that the employing establishment was merging with another bureau and adding 

roughly 4,000 employees to the agency. Appellant noted that his job as supervisory training 

manager was to lead or participate in multiple, complex transition-related tasks, while also leading 

daily functions to maintain existing training programs. He listed “key factors” that led to the 

buildup of anxiety beginning in March 2019 and a panic attack on June 27, 2019. Appellant noted 

that on March 18, 2019 he was told second hand by others that his GS-15 supervisor would soon 
3

retire and that one of his team’s only two subordinates, a GS-12 employee, would be leaving in a

month, which meant that his team was left with himself and one GS-8. He explained that “[t]his 

immediately had me very concerned about our ability to perform all the duties a ssociated with 

existing training requirements and critical transition-related requirements due by 10/1/19.” 

Appellant further explained that both the GS-15 supervisor and the GS-12 subordinate had vast 

background knowledge of how policies were implemented and day to day operational knowledge 

needed to manage training programs. He alleged that facing the loss of these coworkers was highly 

stressful and that performance of routine tasks began to erode soon after they departed. Appellant 

also alleged that the stressful work environment was acknowledged by senior leaders during 

employee gatherings, who stated things like, “We understand that because of this transition we are 

all under tremendous stress,” and that this was regularly echoed by supervisors. He also noted 

comments by others that his current position was vacated by at least two other people in recent 

years because “no one could last in that position,” which added to my stress level. Appellant

alleged that he had productive conversations with his GS-15 supervisor before she retired 

regarding work tasks or routine functions that could be temporarily postponed until after 

October 2019, but those conversations were not passed on to their Director. He noted that he 

witnessed his subordinate employeebecome very stressedand she regularly expressed that she had 

too many responsibilities. Appellant related that, in a weekly staff meeting in May 2019, the team 

was asked, “What keeps you up at night?“ and he responded that over 30 transition-related projects 

were on their large, highly-visible, agency-wide, transition-related plan of action, had his name as 

project lead, had no other designated team members, no clear prioritization, and were due on or 

before October 2019, which seemed like the impossible was expected of him, and was highly 

stressful. He alleged that, during a June 25, 2019 team meeting, two days before his panic attack 

on June 27, 2019, he was told by his Director that his position could be moved from Quantico, VA 

to Baltimore, MD. Appellantindicated that he asked whether he was given this information before 

he was hired. He explained that this was a shock as he lived in Fredericksburg, VA, and that he 

told the Director that after being selected for the job, his supervisorinformed appellantthat he may 

sometimes have to travelto Linthicum, MD, since retirement courses were hosted there. Appellant

alleged that the Director responded that he had told appellant’s former supervisor to tell appellant

that his position could possibly be relocated. He indicated that this was probably the anxiety 

tipping point for the severe panic attack on June 27, 2019.

Appellant further alleged that, between March and June 2019, management officials were 

relating in various employee gatherings that in order to avoid failure during the transition,

employees needed to do more, take on more, do things we normally do not do, and work harder. 

He indicated that everyone was already doing more and that hearing this added additional stress. 

Appellant explained that, with only one subordinate employee on his team, he was faced with 

managing all training programs, and an impossible amount of complex and multi-faceted 

transition-related tasks, that he felt isolated, without clear task priorities, lacking support, possibly 

faced with a job relocation, and that he began to have small panic attacks at work in April 2019.

Appellant provided a copy of one of his desk “notes to self“ from May 16, 2019, which

documented, “Coming to work regularly and about 1-3 per week having overwhelming dizziness, 

some panicked feelings, sense of about to lose it, some confusion, sense of can’t do this or keep 

up, wondering if there is a D55 chaplain or otherresource to talk to about how to cope w/ workload 

and feeling of tremendous anxiety. J. now gone and sense of being very unprepared for ownership 

of so many tasks. There is more info and required work tasks pouring in that I can’t keep up with 
4

and I am struggling w/thinking that something important will slip through the cracks. Everything 

seems sort of monumental in terms of priority.”

Appellant explained that his older brother was murdered by his wife in 2011, and thereafter 

he began suffering from anxiety and panic attacks. He noted that, between 2012 and 2014, he was 

diagnosed with anxiety disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, but

had not needed significant treatment for anxiety or panic attacks since 2013. Appellant explained 

that the anxiety and panic attacks returned only after he had started his current position and he 

experienced an overwhelming fear of failure in his duties as a training manager and as a supervisor. 

OWCP received hospital and treatment records from June 27 and July 3, 2019, noting 

appellant’s treatment for adjustment disorder with anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. 

In an August 20, 2019 treatment note, Dr. Onyeagoro noted that she saw appellant on 

July 9, 2019, for an initial psychiatric evaluation and that he reported anxiety for the prior couple 

of months and a severe panic attack on June 27, 2019 while at work. She noted that the panic 

attack was associated with symptoms including severe headache, elevated blood pressure, feeling 

of doom, and nervousness, and that he identified “his current job as the main cause of the severe 

panic attack because of stressful environment.” Dr. Onyeagoro diagnosed panic disorder.

In an August 26, 2019 treatment note, Dr. Onyeagoro noted that appellant related that his

stress and panic levels were down as he was currently working in a reasonable accommodation

position. She explained that he was working remotely three days a week with the same job 

description. Dr. Onyeagoro also noted that appellant left work two weeks prior because he felt 

that he was going to have an anxiety attack and that he was having smaller anxiety attacks about 

once per week.

In a November 4, 2019 report, Dr. Syed M. Ahmed, a Board-certified neurologist, noted 

that, in March 2019, appellant was promoted to a new position and was not prepared for the 

additional responsibility, which provoked a panic attack. He noted that appellant’s psychiatric 

history began in 2011, after his brother’s murder,that appellant believed that the return of his panic 

attacks was a direct result of his professional duties. Dr. Ahmed opined that this was a possibility; 

however, he was not familiar with appellant’s occupational duties and therefore cannot formulate 

an opinion as to whether this is the direct cause.

By decision dated January 15, 2020, OWCP converted appellant’s claim to an occupational 

disease claim, but denied it, finding that he did not meet the requirements for an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty. It explained that there were no accepted events that were 

factors of employment and that there were accepted events that were not factors of employment. 

On January 14, 2021 appellant requested reconsideration. 

By letter dated April 6, 2021, OWCP requested that the employing establishment respond 

to appellant’s allegations.

In an April 28, 2021 letter, appellant alleged after he began work in March 2019, he took 

on extra work after his manager and an employee left, and that he was actively conducting work 

as outlined in his performance plan when the injury occurred.
5

In an April 30, 2021 response, the employing establishment concurred, with clarification, 

appellant’s allegation that between March through June 2019 agency leadership told employees 

that they needed to do more, take on more work, and complete tasks that they normally would not, 

in preparation of the 2019 transfer of three existing organizations into one agency. However, it 

added that this request was not a request for employees to take on more work than they could 

handle. The employing establishment controverted appellant’s remaining allegations. It explained 

that his duties were consistent with his position as a GG-14 training manager, this was the position 

he applied for, the duties of the previous manager were reassigned to him, and no additional work 

was assigned. The employing establishment noted that the copies of emails submitted by appellant 

provided clear direction from management regarding the work that needed to be done before the 

agency transition and asked employees to be flexible in support of the employing establishment 

goals which included other duties as assigned. It denied that a meeting took place on June 25, 

2019 regarding a move of the agency to Baltimore, MD, there was a discussion regarding 

realignment of training functions, but no decisions were made. The employing establishment also 

indicated that there were no aspects of appellant’s position that, could be perceived as stressful, he 

was not asked to work overtime or to perform additional duties, and he requested and was approved 

for a voluntary reassignment to a position as Human Resource Specialist (GG-13) with pay 

retention at his GG-14 salary. 

OWCP also received copies of an announcement for the Human Resource Specialist 

(Training Manager) GG-14 position description; and a copy of the Performance Evaluation for FY 

2019 with a successful rating. Appellant also submitted copies of various emails regarding work 

topics between his former supervisory and himself, as well as emails from his subordinate 

employee.

By decision dated September 28, 2021, OWCP modified the denial of the claim to find that 

the evidence did not support that the injury or events occurred as alleged. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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.2

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

somehow related to a claimant’s employment. There are situations where an injury or illness has 

some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the purview of 

workers’ compensation. 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 

2

See J.C., Docket No. 22-0254 (issued November 29, 2022); S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); 

Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).
6

compensable.3 However, disability is not compensable when it results from factors such 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.4

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. 5 Where, however, 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.6

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, 

there must be probative and reliable evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur. 7 

Mere perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA. 8

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 are deemed compensable 

factors of employment and are to be considered by a physician when providing an opinion on 

causal relationship, and which working conditions are not deemed factors of employment and may 

not be considered.9 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. 10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has established overwork as a compensable factor of h is

federal employment.

3 A.C., Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018); Pamela D. Casey, 57 ECAB 260, 263 (2005); Lillian 

Cutler, 28 ECAB 125, 129 (1976).

4 Lillian Cutler, id.

5

See R.M., Docket No. 19-1088 (issued November 17, 2020); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990); reaff’d 

on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

6 M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019).

7 E.G., Docket No. 20-1029 (issued March 18, 2022); S.L., Docket No. 19-0387 (issued October 1, 2019); S.B., 

Docket No. 18-1113 (issued February 21, 2019).

8

Id.

9

See R.B., Docket No. 19-0434 (issued November 22, 2019); O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019).

10 Id.
7

Appellant has attributed his emotional condition to Cutler11 factors. He alleged that he 

joined a four-person team in March 2019, only a few months before an agency transition project 

had to be completed in October 2019, that his supervisor retired and the employing establishment 

redistributed their duties to him, and when another subordinate coworker left, his team had only 

one other GS-8 employee, but the team remained responsible for handling the same workload. 

Appellant further asserted that his position description did not list all of his extra duties. He alleged 

that the increase in his duties reached an unmanageable level and, as a result, he was overworked 

and unable to perform hisregularly-assigned duties. Although the employing establishment denied 

that appellant was overworked, the record reflects that the employing establishment did 

acknowledge that it had informed employees that they should perform additional work duties to 

help with the transition. It also admitted that his team was reduced to one staff member and 

himself. The Board has held that overwork may constitute a compensable factor of employment.12

The Board finds that appellant has established a compensable employment factor with respect to 

the allegation of overwork.13

The Board further finds that, while appellant also alleged that his emotional condition was 

caused by being told that his work location may be moved to Baltimore MD, this allegation 

pertains to an administrative matter. In Thomas D. McEuen,

14 the Board held that an employee’s 

emotional reaction to administrative actions or personnel matters taken by the employing 

establishment is not covered under FECA, as such matters pertain to procedures and requirements 

of the employer and do not bear a direct relation to the work required of the employee. The 

assignment of a work location is recognized as an administrative function of the employer and, 

absent evidence of error or abuse, does not constitute a compensable employment factor. 15 In this

case, the record reflects that appellant was not moved to a different location. He has therefore not 

established that the employing establishment otherwise committed error or abuse in transferring 

his work location. 

As appellant has established overwork as a compensable factor of employment, the case 

must be remanded for an evaluation of the medical evidence with regard to the issue of causal 

relationship.16 Accordingly, the Board will set aside OWCP’s September 28, 2021 decision and 

remand the case for further development of the evidence with regard to whether appellant has 

established an emotional condition causally related to the accepted compensable employment 

11 Lillian Cutler,supra note 4; see alsoR.R., Docket No. 20-0954 (issued December 8, 2022); S.O.,Docket No. 20-

1271 (issued March 9, 2021); A.C., supra note 3; Pamela D. Casey, supra note 3.

12 S.S.,Docket No. 19-1021 (issued April21, 2021); I.P.,Docket No. 17-1178 (issued June 12, 2018); WilliamH. 

Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

13 See L.Y., Docket No. 20-1108 (issued November 24, 2021).

14 Supra note 5.

15 Anita Martin, Docket No. 02-1077 (issued November 12, 2002); see also David M. Furey, 44 ECAB 302, 

306 (1992).

16 L.Y., supra note 13; S.S., Docket No. 21-0814 (issued July 14, 2021);M.D.,Docket No. 15-1796 (issued 

September 7, 2016).
8

factor of overwork.17 Following this and other such further development as deemed necessary, 

OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has established overwork as a compensable factor of h is

federal employment. The Board further finds that this case is not in posture for decision as to 

whether appellant sustained an emotional condition causally related to the accepted compensable 

employment factor of overwork.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 28, 2021 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: May 10, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

17 Id.