United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.J., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Palm Bay, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1226

Issued: January 6, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Joanne Wright, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On May 29, 2020 appellant, through his representative, filed a timely appeal from a 

February 19, 2020 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 his burden of proof to establish an emotional 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On October 4, 2018 appellant, then a 57-year-old city letter carrier, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed anxiety, depression, and a sleep disorder 

due to factors of his federal employment. He noted that he first became aware of his conditions 

on October 7, 2015 and realized their relation to his federal employment on September 13, 2018. 

Appellant explained that multiple managerial changes created a hostile workplace where he 

encountered disparaging remarks and constant humiliation and harassment over work methods. 

He referred to confrontations regarding a February 23, 2012 work-related injury and ongoing 

treatment.

3

 Appellant stopped work on September 13, 2018.

In an October 24, 2018 development letter, OWCP informed appellant that it had received 

no evidence in support of his occupational disease claim. It advised him of the type of factual and 

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

In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

provide additional information, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor on the 

accuracy of appellant’s statements. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond. 

Appellant submitted duty status reports (Form CA-17) dated June 15 and August 17, 2018 

providing work restrictions, including no overtime work or work longer than eight hours. 

In a September 13, 2018 Form CA-17, Dr. Richard Bunt, a Board-certified psychiatrist, 

diagnosed anxiety disorder due to harassment and stress, experienced that same day at work. He 

also provided work restrictions.

In medical reports dated September 13 to 28, 2018, Dr. Bunt noted that appellant became 

“shaky” and experienced an anxiety attack at work due to stress he encountered after his manager 

questioned him about his 2012 workers’ compensation injury. He diagnosed recurrent major 

depressive disorder, panic disorder, unspecified anxiety disorder and adjustment disorder with 

anxiety. In a September 19, 2018 medical report, Dr. Bunt provided notes on appellant’s 

psychotherapy treatment. In a September 28, 2018 work excuse note, he held appellant off work 

commencing September 13, 2018.

Appellant submitted an unsigned October 1, 2018 Form CA-17 describing his mental 

health anxiety due to a September 13, 2018 injury and providing work restrictions. 

3 On February 27, 2012 appellant filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1), alleging that on February 23, 2012 

he injured his back while in the performance of duty under OWCP file No. xxxxxx323. OWCP accepted his claim on 

June 26, 2012 for a lumbar strain/sprain. On September 13, 2012 it expanded the acceptance of the claim to include 

displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy.
3

In an October 4, 2018 report, Dr. Bunt noted that he had been treating appellant since 

October 7, 2015 and diagnosed major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, 

adjustment disorder with anxiety, and Circadian sleep disorder. He summarized his treatment and 

stated that appellant experienced a severe elevation in anxiety due to being overwhelmed from 

having to go on Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for medical reasons. Dr. Bunt 

opined that, due to his psychological condition, appellant would need to continue his current course 

of treatment. In a form report of even date, he noted a September 13, 2018 employment incident 

in which appellant reported that his supervisor stressed him out to the point he had an anxiety 

attack, and was unable to complete his work for the day. Dr. Buntrelated that he had seen appellant 

since 2015 for anxiety and depression, and was stable. He estimated that he would need to remain 

out of work until November 5, 2018 as his anxiety attacks prevented him from continuing his daily 

talks. Dr. Bunt diagnosed anxiety disorder, panic attacks, and major depressive disorder.

In an October 19, 2018 statement, M.R., a former station manager, noted that at some time 

in 2014 and again in 2015, he became aware that appellant was taking medication for anxiety.

In an October 25, 2018 statement, A.A., appellant’s supervisor, controverted his claim. 

She detailed the September 13, 2018 meeting in which management requested that he provide 

documentation of his scheduled medical appointments, so that they could plan his carrier schedule 

in advance. Management questioned why appellant needed to leave work 2 hours prior to his 

appointment that was 15 minutes away. A.A. claimed that appellant became irate and loud over 

management’s requests, stormed out of the office and did not return to work. She recounted that 

appellant had previously been very hostile with management, and had yelled at management 

several times before. A.A. acknowledged that there were times where appellant’s stress and 

workload increased, as with any job, but noted that appellant was prohibited from working longer 

than eight hours, and that he was given assistance to relieve him of excess work. She asserted that 

appellant had conduct problems and described him as combative, argumentative, and defensive 

when he was asked simple questions. 

In an October 27, 2018 letter, R.S., appellant’s manager, controverted his claim. She 

detailed the September 13, 2018 meeting with him where she requested that he bring in 

documentation of his scheduled medical appointments so that she could plan her weekly schedule 

accordingly. R.S. questioned appellant about his use of four hours of leave for his appointments 

because the location was only 15 minutes away and the appointments lasted no longer than an 

hour. She asserted that he stood up and began yelling and pointing his finger in her face. R.S. 

attempted to speak to him in a calmer tone, but appellant eventually left, and stated that he was 

going out on stress. She contended that his condition was not work related; rather that he was 

upset over the fact that she had requested his appointment times in advance. 

In medical reports dated October 1 through November 1, 2018, Dr. Bunt diagnosed 

recurrent major depressive disorder, unspecified anxiety disorder, panic disorder and adjustment 

order with anxiety. He provided notes on appellant’s psychotherapy treatment related to his 

complaints of anxiety, anger, and employment difficulties. Dr. Bunt recommended that appellant 

continue psychotherapy treatment and prescribed medication. 

In a November 1, 2018 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), Dr. Bunt noted the 

September 13, 2018 employment incident as well as his history of generalized anxiety disorder. 
4

He diagnosed anxiety disorder and checked a box marked “Yes” to indicate that appellant’s 

condition was caused or aggravated by his federal employment. In a Form CA-17 of even date,

Dr. Bunt related that appellant had experienced symptoms of a panic attack on September 13, 

2018, and provided work restrictions. 

In a November 5, 2018 statement, S.Z., a union representative, noted several changes in 

management during his time at the employing establishment. He asserted that appellant and his 

previous manager had an arrangement for scheduling his medical appointments. When 

management changed in 2017, they immediately began questioning him on his time estimates for 

his routes and his time needed for doctor’s appointments. S.Z. recounted that there were multiple 

arguments and appellant requested union representation to help work out these arrangements. He 

noted that he met with management at appellant’s request for union representation, and that 

management did not dispute that it questioned the validity of his Form CA-17 for his previous 

injury. S.Z. claimed that management said he was “faking” his injury while management claimed 

that it only said that he was “milking it.” After this meeting, he noted that there were no further 

grievances between the parties involved. In January 2018, a new manager, C.K., was appointed 

and she immediately began questioning appellant daily on his time estimates for his work, and the 

time he used for his medical appointments. She frequently accompanied him on his mail routes 

because she did not believe his estimated times. S.Z. contended that because appellant was never 

disciplined or instructed on what he was doing wrong, management was simply harassing him 

because they were inconvenienced by his need for accommodations. He further contended that in 

June 2018 R.S. and A.A. were assigned to manage the employing establishment, and continued to 

harass appellant. S.Z. indicated that appellant informed him on September 11, 2018 that 

management began requesting his timecards for his appointments, something that had not been 

done for him in his previous six years of working with his injury. He detailed the September 13, 

2018 meeting, and claimed that R.S. and A.A. engaged with appellant in a confrontational and 

hostile manner, and questioned the validity of his injury. S.Z. noted that appellant was visibly 

upset because his hands were shaking and his voice was unsteady. He asserted that appellant 

appeared to be in a highly stressed state of mind, and suggested that he go to the breakroom to try 

and relax. Thereafter, appellant left work and scheduled a doctor’s appointment later that day. 

S.Z. concluded that, in his opinion, he had been subjected to unnecessary stress and harassment 

due to his employment injury.

In a November 5, 2018 medical note, Gloria Johnson, a nurse practitioner, noted 

appellant’s history of treatment beginning October 7, 2015. She also noted that since 

September 13, 2018 he experienced anxiety and having panic attacks.

In a November 7, 2018 response to OWCP’s questionnaire, appellant noted that new 

management arrived in the summer of 2018. He asserted that management was aware of his work 

restrictions due to his 2012 employment injury but chose to ignore them and questioned his 

medical treatment. Appellant detailed daily calls about his estimated workload that caused 

confrontations as well as his request for overtime and additional assistance when he was working 

heavy workloads. He claimed that management also complained about having no coverage during 

the times he leaves work for medical treatment and instructed him to do his work himself whenever 

he called asking for assistance due to his work restrictions. Appellant alleged that management 

was more concerned with their numbers and used intimidation, threats, harassment and lies to 
5

achieve their goals. He noted that he began attending therapy in 2015 with Dr. Bunt due to anxiety 

as a result of his treatment at work.

Appellant submitted an undated statement in which he recounted that on September 13, 

2018 he was called into the office and confronted over time used for a previously-accepted OWCP 

injury. His managers questioned him over his need for treatment, the dates and times he went for 

treatment, whether he even went to his appointments and the reasons why he could not attend his 

appointments when he was off the clock. Appellant asserted that as his managers continued asking 

him questions, he became anxious and began to feel ill. He claimed that he had experienced 

harassment from multiple managers over the past two years that has added stress to the office. 

Appellant asserted that each manager would bully, harass, intimidate, confront and make 

disparaging comments and remarks on the workroom floor. He discussed instances where 

management harassed him over his workload, confronted him over the phone about his need for 

help, and ordered him to disobey his OWCP work restrictions as outlined in his CA-17 forms. 

Appellant alleged that these actions created a hostile workplace and caused him to become anxious, 

stressed and unable to sleep. He also noted that he also experienced a heart attack in 2013.

The employing establishment submitted a position description of appellant’s duties as a 

city carrier. 

By decision dated January 18, 2019,OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his medical condition arose in 

the course of employment and within the scope of compensable work factors. 

On December 26, 2019 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s January 18, 2019 

decision. In an attached statement, he explained that when his requests for assistance on his routes 

were denied management would improperly instruct him to violate his work restrictions and 

discipline him if he failed to do so. As a result of his inability to perform his job duties, appellant

began to experience anxiety.

Appellant attached a copy of S.Z.’s November 5, 2018 statement signed by D.C., a union 

steward. 

In a March 7, 2019 statement, M.R. noted that during his time as station manager from 

2009 to 2016 he became aware of appellant’s anxiety in 2014 and 2015 and provided that he was 

able to perform his job functions in a professional manner. He claimed that appellant’s attendance 

at work did not suffer, that he always made an effort to do his job and also attempted work around 

his doctor’s appointments so that his workload would not be affectively negatively.

In a March 29, 2019 statement, N.D., a lead clerk, related that she had worked with 

appellant for approximately 15 years and that he had a good attitude, did his job in a straightforward manner and was always polite and courteous. During the timeframe of June to 

November 2018 she observed him become more upset as he struggled with management. N.D. 

noted that she did not know specific details,but she just knew appellant looked like he was “pulling 

his hair out” trying to get his manager to understand what he was going through. As management 

changed his workday around to perform more work at the post office and less carrying mail on his 

route, his personality changed back to easygoing. 
6

In a May 5, 2019 statement, S.Z. again described appellant’s treatment regarding his 2012 

employment injury. He opined that appellant was unfairly harassed and questioned by 

management because they did not understand or believe the validity of his injury. S.Z. asserted 

that this harassment caused or contributed to his emotional state.

Appellant submitted a May 10, 2019 Form CA-17 providing work restrictions related to 

his accepted lumbar condition. 

In a May 16, 2019 statement,T.J., appellant’s coworker, related that he worked across from 

appellant and that on multiple occasions he heard phone conversations where managers would 

repeatedly question, harass, and make comments to him. Both managers would inform him that 

they did not have personnel to cover for his route and also that neither manager did anything to 

stop other employees from making derogatory comments about his work habits concerning his 

work-related injury. T.J. described the work environment from June to September 2018 as 

combative and taxing.

In a May 22, 2019 letter, Dr. Bunt provided notes related to appellant’s treatment following 

the September 13, 2018 employment incident and reported that his anxiety had since stabilized. 

Appellant submitted multiple carrier -- auxiliary control forms dated from August 20 to 

September 11, 2018 where he had to use auxiliary time for various reasons.

In an undated statement, appellant claimed that many of the statements A.A. and R.S. made 

to controvert his claim were false. He explained that even though A.A. asserted that he was not 

performing his duties and had a disciplinary problem, she submitted no evidence to support her 

statement, and that he was unaware of any disciplinary actions in his employment folder. 

Appellant recounted the changes in management and their multiple questions concerning his work 

restrictions, his inability to work overtime and his medical appointments. He alleged that due to 

A.A. and R.S.’s management the workplace became a hostile environment. Appellant described 

the workdays from September 8 to 13, 2018 in which he was harassed on the workroom floor. He 

asserted that he filed a 3996 form showing that he needed assistance on his route and that his 

managers ordered him to violate his work restrictions in order to complete his assignment without 

assistance. 

In an undated statement, W.T., a retired postal worker, explained that he was regularly 

forced by management to carry mail for additional routes due to understaffing issues. He related 

that over the past 10 years, because of the lack of manpower, he had no choice but to carry mail 

unassigned to him and work overtime.

By decision dated February 19, 2020, OWCP denied modification of its January 18, 2019 

decision.
7

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA4 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disability or specific 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 on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 6

To establish an emotional condition causally related to factors of his or her federal 

employment, appellant must submit: (1) factual evidence identifying and supporting employment 

factors or incidents alleged to have caused or contributed to his or her condition; (2) rationalized 

medical evidence establishing that he or she has an emotional condition or psychiatric disorder; 

and (3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that his or her 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 

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 

4

Supra note 2.

5 A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019);Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); see T.O.,Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

October 29, 2018); see Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

7 G.R., Docket No. 18-893 (issued November 21, 2018); George H. Clark, 56 ECAB 162 (2004); KathleenD. 

Walker, 42 ECAB 603 (1991).

8 L.Y., Docket No. 18-1619 (issued April12, 2019); L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007).

9 W.F., Docket No. 17-640 (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.10 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.
8

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 

To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment by coworkers 

are established as occurring and arising from a claimant’s performance of his or her regular duties, 

these could constitute employment factors.12 However, for harassment to give rise to a 

compensable disability under FECA there must be evidence that harassment did, in fact, occur.

Mere perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA.13 Additionally, verbal 

altercations and difficult relationships with supervisors, when sufficiently detailed by the claimant 

and supported by the record, may constitute factors of employment. This does not imply, however, 

that every statement uttered in the workplace will give rise to coverage under FECA. 14

An employee’s emotional reaction to administrative or personnel matters generally falls 

outside of FECA’s scope.15 Although related to the employment, administrative and personnel

matters are functions of the employer rather than the regular or specially-assigned duties of the 

employee.16 However, to the extent 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.17

Perceptions and feelings, alone, are not compensable. To establish entitlement to benefits, 

a claimant must establish a basis in fact for the claim by supporting his or her allegations with 

probative and reliable evidence.18 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.19

11 Lillian Cutler, id.

12 See B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); M.R.,Docket No. 18-0304 (issued November 13, 2018); 

David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991); KathleenD. Walker,supra note 7.

13 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991).

14 Y.B., Docket No. 16-0193 (issued July 23, 2018); Marguerite J. Toland, 52 ECAB 294 (2001).

15 G.R., supra note 7; Andrew J. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170, 171 (2001); MatildaR. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421, 423 

(2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990); reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 566 (1991).

16 David C. Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263, 268 (2005); Thomas D. McEuen, id.

17 Id.

18 G.R., supra note 7;Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001).

19 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).
9

ANALYSIS

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

Appellant has attributed his emotional conditions to overwork based upon his regular and 

specially-assigned job duties under Cutler.

20

 The Board has held that overwork is a compensable 

factor of employment if appellant submits sufficient evidence to substantiate this allegation. 21 In 

multiple statements, appellant alleged that he made management aware of his work restrictions 

due to his accepted employment injury. He detailed multiple instances where management 

confronted him, questioned his time estimates and the validity of his employment injury and 

instructed him to ignore his work restrictions in order to complete his route for that day. Appellant

asserted that management would complain about not having enough coverage and asked that he 

complete his work without assistance. To support his contentions, he submitted multiple 

statements from S.Z. and D.C. confirming that A.A. and R.S. asked appellant to ignore his work 

restrictions and work overtime to complete his routes. Additionally, even though management 

denied being understaffed, the statement from W.T. confirms that he was asked on multiple 

occasions to work multiple routes due to an understaffing issue at the employing establishment. 

Lastly, appellant submitted multiple carrier -- auxiliary control forms demonstrating that he 

worked auxiliary time for various reasons despite multiple Form CA-17s suggesting that he only 

work for eight hours. Thus, the Board finds that he has established overwork as a compensable 

factor of employment.22

The Board notes that appellant also alleged a hostile work environment, harassment, and 

error and abuse by his supervisors. Appellant asserted that, on multiple occasions, management 

used intimidation, threats, harassment, and confrontations when dealing with his work schedule 

and work restrictions related to his 2012 employment injury. For harassment or discrimination to 

give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, there must be evidence that harassment or 

discrimination did in fact occur.23 While A.A. and R.S. disputed his allegations, appellant 

provided statements from S.Z. and D.C., his coworkers, that management engaged with him in a 

confrontational and hostile manner. Additionally, in T.J.’s May 16, 2019 statement, he recounted 

hearing management harass appellant over the phone and create a combative and taxing work 

environment. Lastly, appellant submitted multiple contemporaneous medical reports that made 

reference to the September 13, 2018 employment incident in particular that caused him anxiety 

and stress. Verbal altercations and difficult relationships with coworkers, when sufficiently 

detailed and supported by the record, may constitute compensable factors of employment.24 The 

Board therefore finds that appellant has provided reliable and probative evidence regarding 

20 Supra note 7.

21 D.T., Docket No. 19-1270 (issued February 4, 2020); W.F.,Docket No. 18-1526 (issued November 26, 2019); 

J.E., Docket No. 17-1799 (issued March 7, 2018); BobbieD. Daly, 53 ECAB 691 (2002).

22 W.F., id.; J.E.,id..

23 Supra note 12. See S.B., Docket No. 18-1113 (issued February 21, 2019); JanetI. Jones, 47 ECAB 345, 

347 (1996).

24 J.M., Docket No. 16-0717 (issued January 12, 2017); L.M., Docket No. 13-0267 (issued November 15, 2013).
10

management harassing and being confrontational towards him.

25

 Thus, appellant has established 

compensable employment factors with respect to these allegations of harassment.

As appellant has established compensable factors of employment, OWCP must base its 

decision on an analysis of the medical evidence. The case will therefore be remanded to OWCP 

to analyze and develop the medical evidence.26 After this and other such further development as 

deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 19, 2020 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this opinion of the Board.

Issued: January 6, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

25 Id.

26 C.S.,Docket No. 19-0116 (issued January 10, 2020); L.Y.,supra note 8.