United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

H.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, WHITEHALL POST 

OFFICE, Whitehall, PA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0433

Issued: September 27, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 29, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 21, 2022merit 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

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional and/or 

stress-related condition in the performance of duty on December 2, 2021, as alleged.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that,following the January 21, 2022 decision, OWCP received additional evidence. 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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 6, 2021 appellant, then a 52-year-old postal support employee (window

clerk), filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that on December 2, 2021 she sustained 

anxiety and aggravation of preexisting high blood pressure when a coworker ran up to her while 

shouting and pointing a finger toward her while in the performance of duty. On the reverse side 

of the claim form the employing establishment checked a box marked “No” in response to the 

question of whether the injury was in the performance of duty noting “[n]o physical damage,

traumatic due to her mental state.” Appellant stopped work on December 2, 2021.

In a statement dated December 2, 2021, S.S., a maintenance employee,related that he heard 

bells ringing while collecting garbage, which meant that either supervisor or another clerk was 

needed at the windows. He asked appellant why the bell was ringing and she told him that a clerk 

was needed to help out, but she was not going there. Appellant stated that if they tried to make 

her help then she would go home sick. S.S. later saw appellant leave approximately 15 minutes 

later.

In a statement dated December 3, 2021, C.M., a clerk, related that on December 2, 2021 

she was at the window helping a customer with 50 packages and E.M. was processing a passport. 

She noted the line was out the door and that she rang the bell three times for appellant to come and 

help. After the third time, C.M. asked appellant to put her drawer in, but appellant told her no. 

Appellant, in a December 6, 2021 statement, alleged that she has been subjected to 

workplace bullying for the past few months. On December 2, 2021 she related that she was waiting 

for instructions from her supervisor regarding her work assignment following lunch. According 

to appellant, this was the procedure since she reported being harassed. While talking with her 

supervisor, E.M. came charging toward her, shouted at her, and pointed his finger at her telling her 

to get her “a** to the window now” while noting how crowded the window was. Appellant 

asserted that she was shocked and feared for her life. She alleged that her supervisor held E.M. 

back and told him he was out of line for what he said to her. At this point appellant requested to 

go home. She asserted the employing establishment had a hostile work environment.

In a December 6, 2021 statement, H.M., postmaster, stated that on December 2, 2021 

appellant had been instructed to report back at 1:30 p.m. after lunch to relieve the window clerks 

for lunch. He stated that after he ran a few errands appellant told him that the bell kept ringing for 

assistance and his response was that was because help was probably needed. After noticing the 

long line, H.M. instructed appellant to go up and help the clerks reduce the line. Appellant

informed him that she felt unwell. At this point, E.M. left his window and interjected himself into 

the conversation H.M. was having with appellant. E.M. told appellant that they had been calling 

her to help and to get her “a**” up there. Appellant responded by telling E.M. that she did not 

know who his “a**” was talking to. H.M. instructed E.M. to leave. Appellant walked away and 

told him she was going home.

In a December 6, 2021 note, Dr. Cecilia Fleser, a Board-certified psychiatrist, advised that 

appellant had experienced an anxiety episode and inability to function at work. She placed 

appellant on medical leave for December 3, 4, and 6, 2021.

In a December 7, 2021 statement, E.M., a coworker noted that it was very busy at the 

window so he rang the bell for appellant to come up. When she did not answer, C.C. rang the bell 
3

again. The lines for the window were getting longer so he texted H.M. to let him know that 

appellant refused to come to the window noting that appellant told C.C. that she was not going to 

help. He stated that after he finished with his passport appointment, he saw appellant standing 

next to H.M. He then walked up to them and told appellant that they had been calling her, she was 

needed, and to “get your a** up there.” E.M. explained that at that point he was frustrated and 

embarrassed because of the long lines and as the customers could see appellant working in the 

back, and could hear her say that she would not come up to help. 

Appellant, in a December 15, 2021 statement, alleged that her co-worker charged, pointed 

his finger, and yelled at her. While talking to her supervisor, she alleged that he told her to get her 

“a**” to the window and began to threaten her.

In a development letter dated December 16, 2021, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of her claim. It advised her 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, OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide additional 

information, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor. It afforded both parties 30 

days to respond.

OWCP received a December 22, 2021 disability note from Dr. Fleser advising appellant 

was disabled from work for the period December 21 and 22, 2021. 

By decision dated January 21, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding she failed to 

establish an injury in the performance of duty as she did not establish any compensable factors of 

employment and did not submit any medical evidence containing a medical diagnosis. It 

concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim,4including that he or she sustained an injury in the 

performance of duty, and that any specific condition or disability for work for which he or she 

claims compensation is causally related to that 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 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 

3

Supra note 1.

4 M.J., Docket No. 20-0953 (issued December 8, 2021); O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August7, 2019); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joseph M. Whelan, 20 ECAB 55, 58 (1968).

5 M.J., id.; O.G., id.; G.T., 59 ECAB 447 (2008);Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989).

6

20 C.F.R. § 10.115;R.D., Docket No. 21-0050 (issued February 25, 2022); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 

313 (1999); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, id.
4

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.

7

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 

compensable.8 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.

9

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.

10

 However, for harassment to give rise to a 

compensable disability under FECA there must be evidence that harassment did, in fact, occur.11

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 her allegations with probative 

and reliable evidence.

12

 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.

13

ANALYSIS

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

OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, finding that she had not established 

a compensable employment factor. The Board must therefore initially review whether the alleged 

incidents and conditions of employment are covered employment factors under the terms of FECA.

7

J.T., Docket No.20-0390(issued April2, 2021); E.S., Docket No. 18-1493 (issued March 6, 2019); C.M., Docket 

No. 17-1076 (issued November 14, 2018); Kathleen D. Walker, 42 ECAB 603 (1991).

8

J.T., id.; E.S., id.; 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).

9 Cutler, id.

10 P.K., Docket No. 21-0967 (issued December 3, 2021); T.L., Docket No. 18-0100 (issued June 20, 2019); M.R., 

Docket No. 18-0304 (issued November 13, 2018);DavidW. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991); Kathleen D. 

Walker, 42 ECAB 603, 608 (1991).

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

12 E.S., supra note 4; G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018); Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 

468 (2001).

13 See J.T., supra note 4; C.M., supra note 7; 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. 

Garry M. Carlo, 47 ECAB 299, 305 (1996).
5

Appellant alleged that the verbal altercation with E.M. on December 2, 2021 resulted in an

anxiety attack and aggravation of preexisting high blood pressure.

Appellant alleged that E.M. charged at her, he pointed his finger at her, and told her to get 

her “a**” up to the window, while she was waiting for instructions from her supervisor regarding 

her work assignment. The Board has recognized the compensability of verbal physical threats in 

certain situations, but the factual aspects of such claimed threats must be established in order to 

establish a compensable employment factor. The evidence of record includes witness statements

regarding the verbal altercation detailing the December 2, 2021 interaction with E.M. The 

evidence substantiates that E.M. was angry with appellant because she had been ignoring the bell 

requesting assistance at the window. The witness statements confirm that E.M. told appellant to 

get her “a**” up to the window, and came toward appellant pointing her finger at her. 

The Board finds the evidence of record supports appellant’s claim that she was verbally 

confronted and threatened by E.M. on December 2, 2021.14 The record contains appellant’s own 

statements, as well as corroborating witness statements from coworkers and her supervisor.

15

 The 

Board has recognized the compensability of threats, when the factual aspects of such claimed 

threats are established.16 The Board finds that the verbal confrontation on April 16, 2019 

constitutes a compensable employment factor.

As appellant has established a compensable factor of employment the case will therefore 

be remanded to OWCP to analyze and develop the medical evidence of record. 17 After this and 

other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision on the 

merits of this claim.

CONCLUSION

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

14 See J.T., supra note 4; J.Z., Docket No. 19-1156 (issued July 28, 2020); M.R., Docket No. 17-1803 (issued 

February8, 2019).

15 See J.T., id.; M.F., Docket No. 17-1649 (issued July 20, 2018).

16 See C.O., Docket No. 07-1290 (issued December 6, 2007) (defacing a timecard with KKK was a compensable 

factor of employment).

17 See J.Z., supra note 15; S.S., Docket No. 17-0959 (issued June 26, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT January 21, 2022 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: September 27, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board