United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, SUTTER CREEK 

POST OFFICE, Sutter Creek, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1360

Issued: May 4, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On September 26, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 16, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a stress-related 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 14, 2022 appellant, then a 58-year-old rural carrier associate, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he became physically sick when he reported 

for duty due to factors of his federal employment, including a hostile work environment. He 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

explained that, beginning in the middle of March 2021, he began to suffer an inordinate amount 

of stress for an extended period, which continued to the present. Appellant also stated that he had 

ongoing grievances. He noted that he first became aware of his claimed condition on March 18, 

2021 and first realized its relation to factors of his federal employment on April 11, 2022.

In support of his claim, appellant submitted a May 13, 2021 work excuse note from

Dr. Kamalpreet Dulai, a Board-certified family medicine specialist, holding him off work from 

May 10 through 14, 2021. In a June 29, 2021 work excuse note, Dr. William A. Renie, Boardcertified in emergency medicine, held appellant off work until July 1, 2021. 

A September 16, 2021 work excuse note from Matthew Vega, a registered nurse, related

that appellant was seen in the behavioral health clinic for extreme anxiety. Mr. Vega advised that, 

“[d]ue to work[-]related stressors aggravating [appellant’s] current levels of anxiety,” he was 

holding appellant off work from September 12 through 19, 2021. 

In a May 6, 2022 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of his

claim and requested that he submit additional evidence, including a detailed description of the 

implicated work factors and copies of documents related to any filed grievance related to the claim. 

It requested that he respond to the questions in an attached questionnaire and return it to OWCP. 

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

establishment provide information, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor 

regarding the accuracy of appellant’s allegations. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

Appellant submitted medical evidence, including a June 30, 2021 report from Dr. Sarah 

Hays, a Board-certified psychiatrist, who noted that he reported being under a lot of stress due to 

long work hours, the recent death of a family member, and his daughter’s health condition, which 

might require surgery. He reported that he was experiencing more mental health symptoms lately 

because of all the stress. Dr. Hays diagnosed unspecified mood disorder. 

Appellant also submitted a September 16, 2021 report from Mr. Vega, who noted that 

appellant’s behaviors were becomingmore manic. He reported that work had caused an inordinate 

amount of stress, which made his life difficult to the point that he no longer felt able to work at the 

employing establishment. Appellant also reported a possible conspiracy against him at work and 

a reduction in his hours of sleep.

In a September 27, 2021 report, Dr. Hays noted that appellant reported being falsely 

accused of sexual harassment and asserted that his supervisor was creating a hostile work 

environment. Appellant reported that he believed that he was going to be fired. Dr. Hays 

diagnosed unspecified mood disorder. In a September 29, 2021 report, she again diagnosed 

unspecified mood disorder. In an October 7, 2021 addendum, Dr. Hays indicated that she had 

completed Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) paperwork holding appellant off work due to 

mental health issues from September 24 through October 12, 2021. In an October 18, 2021 report, 

she noted that he reported being under stress due to his job and stated that he would probably have 

to quit. In an October 25, 2021 addendum, Dr. Hays indicated that she completed FMLA 

paperwork to extend appellant’s leave through January 5, 2022. 
3

By decision dated June 16, 2022, OWCP denied appellant’s stress-related condition claim, 

finding that he had not provided specific details regarding his claim and had not established a 

compensable employment factor. It concluded, therefore, that the requirements had not been met

for establishing that he sustained an injury as defined by FECA.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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.3 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. 4

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.5

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

somehow related to an employee’s employment. There are situations where an injury or an illness 

has some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the concept or 

coverage of workers’ compensation. Where the disability results from an employee’s emotional 

reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the 

employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.6 On the other hand, the disability 

is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force or 

his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment, or to hold a 

particular position.7

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that the condition for which he or she claims compensation was caused or 

2

Id.

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

4

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).

5

See S.K.,Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C.,Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014);

Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

6 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

7 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).
4

adversely affected by employment factors.8 This burden includes the submission of a detailed 

description of the employment factors or conditions which he or she believes caused or adversely 

affected a condition for which compensation is claimed, and a rationalized medical opinion 

relating the claimed condition to compensable employment factors.9

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.10 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, it must base its decision on an analysis of the medical evidence. 11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a stress-related 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

In his Form CA-2, appellant indicated that he became physically sick when he reported for 

duty due to an inordinate amount of stress and a hostile work environment. OWCP, in its May 6, 

2022 development letter, requested that he complete an attached questionnaire and provide a 

detailed description of the implicated work factors and copies of documents related to any filed 

grievance related to the claim. Appellant, however, did not respond to OWCP’s May 6, 2022

development questionnaire.

Appellant has not provided a sufficient description of the alleged employment factors. The 

Board, therefore, finds that he has not met his burden of proof.12 As appellant has not met his

burden of proof to establish that, a stress-related condition occurred in the performance of duty, as 

alleged, it is unnecessary to address the medical evidence of record regarding causal relationship.13

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

8 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Pamela R. Rice, 38 ECAB 838, 841 (1987).

9 P.B., Docket No. 17-1912 (issued December 28, 2018); Effie O. Morris, 44 ECAB 470, 473-74 (1993).

10 See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992).

11 Id.

12 H.D., Docket No. 15-1698 (issued May 4, 2016).

13 J.C., Docket No. 19-0542 (issued August 14, 2019); see M.P., Docket No. 15-0952 (issued July 23, 2015);

Alvin V. Gadd, 57 ECAB 172 (2005).
5

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish a stress-related 

condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 16, 2022 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 4, 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