United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
P.H., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Oklahoma City, OK, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 19-1354
Issued: March 13, 2020

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On May 28, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 3, 2018 nonmerit
decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The most recent merit
decision was a Board decision dated March 13, 2018, which became final 30 days after issuance,
and is not subject to further review.2 As there was no merit decision by OWCP within 180 days
of the filing of this appeal, pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act3 (FECA) and
20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the merits of this case.
1
Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an
OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from December 3, 2018, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was
June 1, 2019. As this fell on a Saturday, appellant had until the following business day, Monday, June 3, 2019, to file
the appeal. Since using June 4, 2019, the date the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards would
result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the postmark is considered the date of filing. The date of the U.S. Postal
Service postmark is May 28, 2019, rendering the appeal timely filed. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1).
2

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d). See G.G., Docket No. 18-1074 (issued January 7, 2019).

3

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

ISSUE
The issue is whether OWCP properly denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the
merits of her claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been before the Board.4 The facts and circumstances as set forth
in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are set forth
below.
On February 11, 2008 appellant, then a 51-year-old administrative assistant, filed an
occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she developed constant pain in both elbows,
hands, arms, and her neck and back as a result of her employment duties. She indicated that she
first became aware of her condition and first realized that it resulted from her employment on
January 15, 2008. On the reverse side of the claim form, the employing establishment reported
that appellant was last exposed to the conditions alleged to have caused her conditions on
“February 12, 2008.” OWCP accepted her claim for bilateral lateral epicondylitis, bilateral medial
epicondylitis, sciatica, and neck sprain. It subsequently expanded acceptance of appellant’s claim
to include bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.5 OWCP paid wage-loss compensation for total
disability on the periodic rolls, effective June 7, 2009.
On December 5, 2014 OWCP mailed appellant an EN1032 form for her completion. The
form instructed her to report all employment for which she received a salary, wages, income, sales
commissions, piecework, or payment of any kind. Appellant was also directed to report all selfemployment activities or involvement in business enterprises, including (but not limited to)
farming, sales work, operating a business, and providing services in exchange for money, goods,
or other services. The kinds of services that she was required to report included such activities as
carpentry, mechanical work, painting, contracting, child care, keeping books and records, and
managing and overseeing a business of any kind, including a family business. The form also
instructed appellant to report any work or ownership interest in any business enterprise, even if the
business lost money or if profits or income were reinvested or paid to another.
The cover letter for the EN1032 form included the following warning: “A false or evasive
answer to any question, or the omission of an answer, may be grounds for forfeiting your
compensation benefits and subject you to civil liability.” The forms contained certification clauses
which informed appellant of the consequences of not accurately reporting her employment

4

Docket No. 17-1362 (issued March 13, 2018).

5

Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx455, OWCP accepted appellant’s September 15, 2008 occupational disease claim
for cervical spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, cervical disc degeneration, lumbar spondylosis without
myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbar spondylolisthesis, bilateral pes planus, neck sprain, bilateral medial and lateral
epicondylitis, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome as causally related to her employment duties. On September 1,
2010 OWCP combined the current case under OWCP File No. xxxxxxx045 with OWCP File No. xxxxxx455 with the
latter file as the master file.

2

activities, such as being subjected to criminal penalties and losing the right to receive workers’
compensation benefits.
On December 27, 2014 appellant completed and signed the EN1032 form. In response to
the question of whether she worked for an employer for the past 15 months, she reported “No.”
Appellant also responded “No” to the question of whether she was self-employed or involved in
any business enterprise in the past 15 months.
On June 12, 2015 OWCP received a narrative statement from appellant. Appellant
indicated that she needed to correct an answer on the yearly paperwork form. She explained that
her husband had purchased a snow cone trailer and had added her name to the permits, trailer, and
limited liability company (LLC) just in case anything happened to him. Appellant reported that
she answered “No” on the EN1032 form and that she did not think about the snow cone trailer
until her husband opened it for business over the summer.
In a July 23, 2015 letter, the employing establishment’s Office of Inspector General (OIG)
informed OWCP that an investigation into appellant revealed that she had been operating her own
business and had failed to report the employment activities to OWCP. It requested that OWCP
issue a forfeiture decision due to her failure to disclose her employment.
On July 27, 2015 OWCP received an OIG summary report of investigation, which
indicated that during surveillance OIG agents had observed appellant working at a snow cone
business, carrying merchandise and buckets, unloading supplies from a trailer, writing on the
outside menu of the business, setting up tables and umbrellas, staking signs in the ground, and
serving snow cones to customers.
In a completed Form EN1032 dated February 7, 2016, appellant answered “yes” that she
was self-employed or involved in a business enterprise from the period April 1 to
September 1, 2015. She explained that she and her husband bought a snow cone stand and that
she bought and delivered cups, checked on the employees, and visited with customers a couple of
times. Appellant noted a pay rate of $8.00/hour.
In a February 7, 2016 narrative statement, appellant explained that her husband had added
her name to the title of the snow cone stand that he had bought because he had lung cancer. She
indicated that, while grocery shopping with her husband, they occasionally bought cups, straws,
or napkins and dropped them off at the snow cone stand. Appellant also related that the snow cone
stand was two blocks from her house and that she occasionally stopped by to see how the business
was operating and visit with customers. She reported that neither she nor her husband were paid
or received any wages while operating the snow cone stand.
By decision dated August 18, 2016, OWCP found that appellant had forfeited her wageloss compensation for the period September 27, 2013 through December 27, 2014 for failure to
report her business and employment activities or earnings on a Form EN1032. The forfeiture
period covered the 15 months preceding the December 27, 2014 EN1032 form. OWCP found that
appellant had knowingly provided false information about earnings and self-employment on that

3

EN1032 form. It also determined that all compensation paid during the period would be considered
an overpayment subject to recovery in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 8129.6
OWCP received a September 21, 2016 letter by Dr. John Ellis, Board-certified in family
medicine, who related that appellant had severe anxiety and depression due to the multiple
work-related injuries to her neck, upper extremities, lumbar spine, and feet. Dr. Ellis noted that
she was under the influence of narcotic pain medicine when she filled out the Form EN1032 in
2014 and opined that she was not fully aware of what she was signing.
In an October 18, 2016 report, Dr. Gary A. Rouse, a clinical psychologist, related that,
since his original evaluation in September 2008, appellant had continued to decline emotionally
and physically. He opined that she was not competent or knowledgeable enough to understand
what she was signing or attesting to or to understand the complexity or legal implications of
partnerships and LLCs.
In a January 31, 2017 statement, appellant explained that she had not received money from
her husband’s snow cone business nor did she perform any job activities. She reported that her
husband had recently dissolved the LLC.
On August 18, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of the August 18, 2016 forfeiture
decision. In a statement dated August 9, 2017, she asserted that she believed that she was not
required to report her investment income as work activities since there was no evidence that the
three to five hours total spent at the business could be construed as integral to the operation of the
business. Appellant cited to FECA Procedure Manual 2.402.5 and S.G.,7 and contended that the
Board has distinguished between the reporting requirements for income received from passive
investment and earnings and income received by performing work and earning wages. She also
alleged that she was not fully aware when she signed the LLC documents due to her deteriorating
mental health, severe anxiety, and depression. Appellant also cited to B.Y.,8 alleging that the Board
had previously found that, in finding that a claimant forfeited compensation, OWCP could not rely
solely on video tape and summary submitted by the employing establishment’s OIG. She also
noted her disagreement with the OIG investigation and her interview with the OIG agents.

6

By separate decision dated August 18, 2016, OWCP also issued a preliminary determination that appellant
received an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $43,832.60 for the period September 27, 2013 through
December 27, 2014 as a result of the forfeiture. It found that she was at fault in the creation of the overpayment
because she failed to report her business and employment activities or earnings from the snow cone business that she
owned with her husband. By decision dated December 12, 2016, OWCP finalized the preliminary overpayment
determination, finding an overpayment of compensation in the amount of $43,832.60 for the period September 27,
2013 to December 27, 2014. It also found that appellant was at fault in the creation of the overpayment, and therefore
was not eligible for waiver for recovery of the overpayment. On June 2, 2017 appellant filed an appeal to the Board
regarding the December 12, 2016 overpayment decision. By decision dated March 13, 2018, the Board affirmed the
December 12, 2016 OWCP decision, which finalized the overpayment of compensation in the amount of $43,832.60
for the period September 27, 2013 to December 27, 2014 and found that she was at fault in the creation of the
overpayment.
7

Docket No. 11-0942 (issued April 4, 2012).

8

Docket No. 11-1798 (issued July 24, 2012).

4

By decision dated November 17, 2017, OWCP denied modification of the August 18, 2016
forfeiture decision.
On November 20, 2018 OWCP received appellant’s appeal request form, which requested
reconsideration of the November 17, 2017 decision. In a narrative statement, appellant alleged
that OWCP ignored many issues, including her arguments concerning why any of the OIG
interviews or photographs were applicable. She also contended that OWCP erred by ignoring
evidence and arguments concerning whether her comprehension was impaired. Appellant cited to
the Board’s holding in C.G.,9 and alleged that she had provided probative supporting evidence that
she would have difficulty understanding the obligations required on a Form EN1032.
Appellant also resubmitted Dr. Ellis’ September 21, 2016 report and Dr. Rouse’s
October 28, 2016 report.
OWCP received a statement from appellant dated June 1, 2017. Appellant alleged that
OWCP had not supported its forfeiture determination because there was no evidence establishing
that she knowingly failed to report self-employment or earnings on the Form EN1032 signed on
December 27, 2014. She explained that the three to five hours spent at the business were not
considered valuable on the open labor market and that her activities could not be construed as
integral to the operation of the business. Appellant also asserted that, although the business was
licensed in May 2014, it had not opened for business in April 2015. She further indicated that the
file contained statements from her psychologist who noted that she was not fully aware of what
she was signing when she signed the LLC.
By decision dated December 3, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for
reconsideration of the merits of the claim pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Section 8128(a) of FECA vests OWCP with discretionary authority to determine whether
to review an award for or against compensation.10 This discretionary authority, however, is subject
to certain restrictions.11 One such limitation is that the request for reconsideration must be received
by OWCP within one year of the date of the decision for which review is sought.12 Timeliness is
determined by the document receipt date of the request for reconsideration as is indicated by the
“received date” in the Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS).13
9

Docket No. 11-0454 (issued May 22, 2012).

10

5 U.S.C. § 8128(a); see L.D., Docket No. 18-1468 (issued February 11, 2019); see also V.P., Docket No. 171287 (issued October 10, 2017); D.L., Docket No. 09-1549 (issued February 23, 2010); W.C., 59 ECAB 372 (2008).
11

20 C.F.R. § 10.607; S.C., Docket No. 18-0126 (issued May 14, 2019).

12
Id. at § 10.607(a); L.W., Docket No. 18-1475 (issued February 7, 2019). For merit decisions issued on or after
August 29, 2011, a request for reconsideration must be received by OWCP within one year of OWCP’s decision for
which review is sought. Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Reconsiderations, Chapter 2.1602.4
(February 2016).
13

Id. at Chapter 2.1602.4(b).

5

Imposition of this one-year filing limitation does not constitute an abuse of discretion.14 OWCP
may not deny a reconsideration request solely because it was untimely filed. When a claimant’s
request for reconsideration is untimely filed, it must nevertheless undertake a limited review to
determine whether it demonstrates clear evidence of error.15 If an application demonstrates clear
evidence of error, OWCP will reopen the case for merit review.16
To demonstrate clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the
issue decided by OWCP. The evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit, and it must manifest
on its face that OWCP committed an error.17 It is not enough merely to demonstrate that the
evidence could be construed so as to produce a contrary conclusion.18 The evidence submitted
must not only be of sufficient probative value to create a conflict in medical opinion or demonstrate
a clear procedural error, but must be of sufficient probative value to shift the weight of the evidence
in favor of the claimant and raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s decision.19
OWCP procedures further provide that the term clear evidence of error is intended to represent a
difficult standard.20
The Board makes an independent determination of whether a claimant has demonstrated
clear evidence of error on the part of OWCP such that it abused its discretion in denying merit
review in the face of such evidence.21
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
The most recent merit decision of OWCP was the November 17, 2017 decision. One year
from November 17, 2017 elapsed on November 17, 2018. As November 17, 2018 fell on a
Saturday, appellant had until the next business day on Monday, November 19, 2018 to file her
reconsideration request.22 OWCP received her reconsideration request on November 20, 2018
which was more than one year after the November 17, 2017 decision. Appellant’s request
14

G.G., Docket No. 18-1072 (issued January 7, 2019); E.R., Docket No. 09-0599 (issued June 3, 2009); Leon D.
Faidley, Jr., 41 ECAB 104 (1989).
15

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); M.H., Docket No. 18-0623 (issued October 4, 2018); Charles J. Prudencio, 41 ECAB
499, 501-02 (1990).
16
L.C., Docket No. 18-1407 (issued February 14, 2019); M.L., Docket No. 09-0956 (issued April 15, 2010). See
also 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); supra note 12 at Chapter 2.1602.5 (February 2016).
17

20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); P.L., Docket No. 18-0813 (issued November 20, 2018); Fidel E. Perez, 48 ECAB 663,
665 (1997).
18

See Leona N. Travis, 43 ECAB 227, 240 (1991).

19

V.L., Docket No. 17-1493 (issued September 12, 2018); Annie L. Billingsley, 50 ECAB 210 (1998).

20

Supra note 12 at Chapter 2.1602.5a (October 2011).

21

Cresenciano Martinez, 51 ECAB 322 (2000); Thankamma Matthews, 44 ECAB 765, 770 (1993).

22

Supra note 12 at Chapter 2.1602.4 (February 2016).

6

therefore was untimely filed.23 The proper standard of review for an untimely reconsideration
request is the clear evidence of error standard.24 In denying her request, OWCP applied the
standard of review for timely requests for reconsideration.25 As it applied the incorrect standard
of review to the untimely request for reconsideration, the Board will set aside OWCP’s
December 3, 2018 decision and remand the case for proper review under the clear evidence of
error standard as required by regulations.26
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 3, 2018 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and this case is remanded for further action
consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: March 13, 2020
Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

23

See E.H., Docket No. 19-0859 (issued December 10, 2019).

24

Supra note 15.

25

See L.W., Docket No. 16-1202 (issued January 25, 2018); H.L., Docket No. 13-2077 (issued March 20, 2014).

26

See 20 C.F.R. § 10.607(b); see also M.C., Order Remanding Case, Docket No. 18-0866 (issued March 26, 2019).

7


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
T.C., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, JOHN F. KENNEDY
AIRPORT, Jamaica, NY, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 17-0872
Issued: October 5, 2017

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge
COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On March 13, 2017 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a
September 22, 2016 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 to consider the merits of the case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish hearing loss due to
noise exposure in his federal job duties.
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.

On appeal counsel argued that the medical evidence submitted was sufficient to establish
that appellant’s hearing loss was causally related to his federal noise exposure and that the claim
was clearly compensable.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On October 29, 2014 appellant, then a 55-year-old ramp clerk, filed an occupational
disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging hearing loss and ringing in both ears. He noted working on
the airfield with no hearing protection and also earlier working as a clerk under a “SAC” sorter.
Appellant indicated that he first became aware of his hearing loss on July 16, 2011 and first
attributed his condition to his employment on that date. Appellant’s supervisor noted that
appellant’s hearing protection was provided for all ramp clerks and that, while working under the
“SAC” sorter, he could have asked for hearing protection. He indicated that appellant first
reported his condition on October 29, 2014.
Appellant asserted that his hearing loss began in 2010 and that employing establishment
hearing tests supported his hearing loss. He worked at the employing establishment for 33 years
as a “SAC” sorter and on the ramp around aircraft. Appellant alleged that he had no hearing
problems prior to his employment with the employing establishment.
In support of his claim, appellant submitted a report dated October 8, 2014 from
Dr. Joseph M. Capo, a Board-certified otolaryngologist. Dr. Capo reported that appellant had
worked for over 30 years at the airport on the ramps and was exposed to significant noise of jet
engines. He reviewed an audiogram taken in conjunction with his examination and found
bilateral moderate-to-severe sensorineural hearing loss especially in the high tones. Dr. Capo
diagnosed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss causally related to excessive noise at the
employing establishment. He also noted that appellant reported bilateral tinnitus.
Appellant submitted an audiological report dated October 8, 2014 from the employing
establishment. This report indicated that appellant had 8.25 percent binaural hearing loss in
2014.
On January 6, 2015 OWCP requested additional factual and medical information from
the employing establishment and appellant. It requested that appellant provide a list of his
employment history, noise exposure, and the date he first noticed his hearing loss. OWCP
requested that the employing establishment provide the location of job sites, the sources of
exposure to noise, the decibel and frequency level for each job site, and a copy of all medical
examinations pertaining to hearing or ear problems. It also requested that the employing
establishment provide the date of last exposure to employment-related noise.
Appellant responded on January 14, 2015 and listed his employment from 1981 through
November 2014 at the employing establishment. He noted that he worked under the “SAC”
sorter from February 1984 through June 2004 and that from June 2004 through November 2014
he worked as a ramp clerk on the airfield exposed to jet engine noise. Appellant alleged that he
never received hearing protection and that he requested this protection on numerous occasions.
He indicated that the employing establishment hearing test in 2010 provided documentation of
his hearing loss, but that he did not perceive his loss of hearing at that time. Appellant began to

2

notice his hearing loss while watching television and conversing. He reported that he received
yearly hearing tests from the employing establishment and that on two occasions his results were
retested by outside physicians. Appellant advised that he had retired from the employing
establishment and denied any hobbies which involved loud noise exposure.
The employing establishment responded to OWCP’s request for information on
February 4, 2015. Appellant’s supervisor indicated that appellant worked on the air field ramp
approximately one hour a day. He also noted that appellant worked as a dispatch clerk under the
“SAC” sorter machine. Appellant’s supervisor acknowledged that appellant was exposed to
noise from airplanes both on the air field and under the “SAC” sorter machine. He indicated that
earmuffs were provided by the employing establishment and the airline. Appellant’s supervisor
confirmed that appellant had retired on November 29, 2015.
The employing establishment submitted three reports addressing noise monitoring. The
first was dated August 12, 2009. In this report, the employing establishment noted that the
action level of 85 decibels had been set by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration
(OSHA) to protect workers from the health effects of noise on hearing, but that individual
susceptibility to noise levels may not always guarantee no hearing loss. The employing
establishment noted that exterior ramp operations and other areas ranged between 85.1 and 103.9
decibels and external ramp operations had the potential of exceeding the OSHA action level
when aircraft operated in close proximity to the tug drivers.
The second report, dated February 8, 2011, reported four areas within the employing
establishment building which exceeded 85 decibels, including the floor strapping machine, the
Jogger, the floor drivers, and paging on the intercom from December 1 through 8, 2010. The
jitney drivers who transported post containers were also exposed to more than 85 decibels. The
report recommended that hearing protection be made available to tug and jitney drivers. All
work areas with high noise potential had not been assessed, however, due to process shut down
during the noise assessment. The report further noted that fluctuations in aircraft activities on
exterior ramps and the condition of the load of containers being pulled could also affect noise
levels experience by the drivers. The maximum continuous noise approached 115 decibels.
The third report, dated August 14, 2012, found that, on the date of testing May 23, 2012,
noise levels did not exceed 85 decibels. This report indicated that all jitney drivers were enrolled
in a hearing conservation program. The report noted that the peak noise on the loading dock was
80.3 decibels, but that there was limited activity on the loading dock and that the peak level was
recorded when the intercom was operating. The report recommended continuing jitney drivers
on the hearing conservation program.
The employing establishment submitted an audiogram log. Appellant did not have a
baseline test, but his last audiogram taken by the employing establishment was dated
July 16, 2011.
By decision dated September 22, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for work-related
hearing loss. It found that appellant had not provided sufficient details regarding his
employment history prior to January 1981 and had not provided information regarding any

3

military service. OWCP also noted that appellant had not provided his employing establishment
audiograms.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the
essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative and substantial
evidence, including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United States” within the
meaning of FECA and that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time limitation
period of FECA, that an injury was sustained 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.4
OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work
environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”5 To establish that an injury
was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational disease claim, a claimant must
submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease
or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual statement identifying employment
factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or
condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the employment factors identified by the
claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which compensation is claimed or, stated
differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to the
employment factors identified by the claimant.
Appellant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative,
and substantial evidence that his hearing loss was causally related to noise exposure in his
federal employment.6 Neither the condition becoming apparent during a period of employment,
nor the belief of the employee that the hearing loss was causally related to noise exposure in
federal employment, is sufficient to establish causal relationship.7
OWCP’s procedures note that hearing loss may result from prolonged exposure to noise
levels above 85 decibels. These procedures further note, “Acoustic trauma may, however, result
from decibel levels below 85 decibels if exposure is sufficiently prolonged. OWCP therefore

3

Id.

4

Kathryn Haggerty, 45 ECAB 383, 388 (1994).

5

20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q).

6

Stanley K. Takahaski, 35 ECAB 1065 (1984); R.J., Docket No. 16-1525 (issued January 9, 2017).

7

Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994); John W. Butler, 39 ECAB 852 (1988); R.J., id.; D.S., Docket
No. 16-0903 (issued September 8, 2016).

4

does not require that the claimant show exposure to injurious noise in excess of 85 decibels as a
condition to approval of the [hearing loss] claim.”8
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision.
OWCP denied appellant’s claim as it found that he failed to provide all the factual
evidence requested.
Proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature, nor is OWCP a disinterested
arbiter. While the claimant has the burden of proof to establish his or her claim, OWCP also has
a responsibility in the development of the evidence.9 This is particularly true when the evidence
is of the character normally obtained from the employing establishment or other government
source.10 The evidence regarding the hearing conservation program testing would be in the
possession of the employer.11 20 C.F.R. § 10.118(a) states: “The employer is responsible for
submitting to OWCP all relevant and probative factual and medical evidence in its possession, or
which it may acquire through investigation or other means. Such evidence may be submitted at
any time.”12 OWCP requested that the employing establishment provide copies of all of
appellant’s medical examinations pertaining to hearing or ear problems. The employing
establishment did not respond with this information. It merely provided an audiogram log which
indicated that appellant was last tested for hearing loss by the employing establishment on
July 16, 2011. Once OWCP has begun investigation of a claim, it must pursue the evidence as
far as reasonably possible, particular when such evidence is in the possession of the employing
establishment and is, therefore, more readily accessible to OWCP.13
For these reasons, the Board finds that the case must be remanded to OWCP for further
development. OWCP shall request that the employing establishment provide all records related
to appellant’s participation in the hearing conservation program. After conducting such further
development as it deems appropriate, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision.

8

Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Requirements for Medical Reports, Chapter 3.600.8.a
(September 1996).
9

See Claudia A. Dixon, 47 ECAB 168 (1995).

10

R.E., 59 ECAB 323 (2008); Willie A. Dean, 40 ECAB 1208 (1989).

11

J.C., Docket No. 15-1517 (issued February 25, 2016); T.M., Docket No. 14-1631 (issued December 2, 2014).

12

20 C.F.R. § 10.118(a).

13

J.C., supra note 11.

5

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 22, 2016 decision of the Office of
Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further development
consistent with this decision of the Board.
Issued: October 5, 2017
Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

6


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
)
)
)
and
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
)
PUGET SOUND HEALTH CLINIC, Seattle, WA, )
Employer
)
__________________________________________ )
R.L., Appellant

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 20-0098
Issued: March 17, 2022

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On October 16, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 18, 2019 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 over
the merits of this case.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional
condition in the performance of duty.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

FACTUAL HISTORY
This case has previously been before the Board. 2 The facts and circumstances as set forth
in the Board’s prior decision are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as
follows.
On January 13, 2015 appellant, then a 58-year-old nurse, filed a traumatic injury claim
(Form CA-1) alleging that she developed emotional distress and severe anxiety on December 18,
2014 at 11:00 a.m. when the employing establishment police improperly arrested her with an
unwarranted display of force while she was engaged in union duties.
In a January 21, 2015 development letter, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies of
her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a factual
questionnaire for her completion. In a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested
that the employing establishment provide additional information regarding appellant’s alleged
emotional condition claim, including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding the
accuracy of her allegations and an explanation of any areas of disagreement, a copy of her position
description, and the results of any investigation. It afforded both parties 30 days for response.
On January 15, 2015 Dr. Keith Sonnanburg, a licensed clinical psychologist, opined that
appellant was totally disabled due to a work-related psychological injury. On February 2, 2015 he
diagnosed work-related stress and anxiety. Dr. Sonnanburg, in an attending physician’s report
(Form CA-20) dated February 4, 2015, checked a box marked “Yes” to indicate that her condition
was caused or aggravated by her employment activity and added that her condition was directly
related to episodes at her place of work.
By decision dated February 24, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition
claim, finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the claimed incident
occurred, as alleged. It noted that she had not submitted a factual statement outlining specific
details of the alleged December 18, 2014 employment incident. Thus, OWCP concluded that the
requirements had not been met to establish an injury as defined by FECA.
On March 4, 2015 appellant requested a review of the written record before a representative
of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review. She provided additional information in support of
her request. In a March 3, 2015 statement, appellant noted that she was a union vice-president and
was responsible for representing employees in meetings and hearings with management, filing
grievances, and protecting employees’ rights. She explained that in the course of representing an
employee, R.G., a pathologist, she met with him on December 18, 2014 to discuss a fact-finding
interview scheduled on that date. Appellant had consulted via telephone with J.M., a physician
who was also the national union representative, who confirmed that R.G. was entitled to union
representation at the scheduled fact-finding interview. She and the chief union steward, A.T., met
S.L, the Acting Director of the employing establishment, and R.N., an employing establishment
official, in the hallway and S.L. informed them that R.G. did not have representation rights for the
interview. Appellant disagreed and noted that R.G. had requested her presence during the
interview. She attended the interview with the permission of the interviewer and took notes.
2

Docket No. 18-1375 (issued May 1, 2019).

2

Shortly after the interview began, R.N. interrupted the meeting and insisted that appellant and A.T.
leave. After appellant left the room, she informed R.N. that she would file an unfair labor practice
complaint against the employing establishment and requested his name. She remained outside the
conference room in the hallway on her cellphone when two armed and uniformed employing
establishment police officers, Lt. W.C., and Lt. E., began searching the area near the conference
room. They subsequently entered the conference room, returned to appellant, and asked her name.
The officers then informed her that they had been asked to remove her from that area and then that
floor of the employing establishment’s building. Appellant alleged that her removal was solely
because of her protected union activities. She noted that Lt. W.C. became agitated and denied that
there were any charges against her, but asked for her security badge. Appellant informed the
officers that her badge was in her office and led them to her office to retrieve her badge. The
officers again denied that she was under arrest and released her from custody after reviewing her
badge. Appellant alleged that this incident caused her heart palpitations, shock, and fear. She was
unable to continue her work that day and eventually went home. Appellant reported to work the
next day and again experienced heart palpitations and tension. She felt that the stress was too
much. Appellant had to ask coworkers to assist with completing her assigned work. Thereafter,
she began to have nightmares about working at the employing establishment.
Appellant noted that she had filed a Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) complaint
against the employing establishment, but had not yet received a final decision. She alleged that
the employing establishment interfered with protected union activity when it called the police after
she left the interview on December 18, 2014.
Appellant provided a February 19, 2015 witness statement from R.G., who noted that he
had requested that she accompany him to the interview to protect his rights. R.G. noted that he
had invited appellant into the interview and the interviewer had indicated that he did not have a
problem with her presence. He asserted that shortly after the interview began, management
officials, including R.N., entered the room and informed the participants that R.G. did not have
the right to union representation. Appellant then left the room.
In a February 19, 2015 statement, B.A., the union president, described the events of
December 18, 2014 and confirmed that the police officers denied that appellant was under arrest,
but escorted her into her office and examined her badge. She informed B.A. that the officers had
been called to remove her from the area of the meeting. B.A. alleged that an officer advised her
that the “panic button” had been pushed as a means of calling the police to the scene.
A February 20, 2015 e-mail from J.M. indicated that he was aware that appellant was acting
as R.G.’s representative in the scheduled interview. On February 20, 2015 A.T. reported that he
had attended the December 18, 2014 meeting with appellant and R.G. He confirmed that the
interviewer consented to their presence during the interview. A.T. was taking notes when R.N.
entered and asserted that union representation was not allowed. He and appellant then left the
room.
In an undated form report, Dr. Sonnanburg noted that appellant was attending a meeting as
a union representative and was shocked by the employing establishment police who responded to
an improper panic signal and removed her. He diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety
and depressed mood with post-traumatic stress disorder symptom pattern.

3

On May 5, 2015 appellant requested reconsideration of the February 24, 2015 OWCP
decision.
In a September 29, 2015 development letter, OWCP requested additional factual
information from the employing establishment including a statement from a supervisor regarding
the accuracy of appellant’s claim, whether her job was stressful, and a copy of her position
description. It afforded 30 days for a response. The employing establishment responded,
contending that R.G. was not entitled to union representation at the December 18, 2014 interview
and that appellant was aware of this fact. It alleged that appellant entered the room where the
interview was scheduled on December 18, 2014 and R.N. had asked her to leave. The employing
establishment asserted that she commented that she would leave the room, but would stand
immediately outside the door. Appellant then demanded information from R.N. in a loud and
aggressive manner. R.N. informed her that her behavior was inappropriate and asked her to leave
the floor. Appellant refused. R.N. then asked the receptionist to summon the police and she
activated the panic button call. The police arrived and asked to see appellant’s identification. They
escorted her to her office to retrieve her badge.
The employing establishment contended that appellant was not arrested, accosted, or
subject to unwarranted display of force. It asserted that R.G. had no right to union representation,
that she was advised of this, that she refused to leave the area when asked, and that she was
therefore acting on her own volition, not as part of protected union activity. The employing
establishment concluded that appellant was not in the performance of duty.
By decision dated January 19, 2016, OWCP modified its February 24, 2015 decision,
finding that appellant had not established a compensable factor of employment and, thus, an injury
was not sustained in the performance of duty. It noted that there was no evidence that the
employing establishment’s actions regarding the December 18, 2014 meeting were abusive,
erroneous, or improper and found that her reactions were self-generated.
On January 18, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of the January 19, 2016 decision
on January 18, 2017. She provided an additional narrative statement dated January 14, 2017,
wherein she asserted that on December 18, 2014 she attended a meeting on the fifth floor of the
employing establishment in room 523 to represent R.G. Appellant was ordered to leave the room
and did so. She remained in the hallway, outside of the room awaiting R.G. in case her assistance
was needed. Appellant alleged that she was quiet, that she was not disruptive, and that she was
checking her cellphone for the number of J.M. to ask for advice. She noted that she was so quiet
that the police officers did not notice her and had to ask where she was. When appellant asked
what charges were being leveled against her, one of the officers became red -faced and flustered.
The police officer used an angry voice to tell appellant that she had to leave the fifth floor and that
he had to remove her from the area. Appellant believed that she had no choice but to leave with
the police under their escort. The police officers walked on either side and escorted her to her
fourth floor office. While there, they notified appellant that she was free to go.
In a January 3, 2017 letter, B.A. indicated that R.G. requested union help and that on
December 18, 2014 appellant was engaged in representational functions at the time of her injury.
She noted that she was appellant’s supervisor and that appellant was entitled to official time at the
time of her injury.

4

On January 4, 2017 A.B., an employing establishment administrative assistant, provided a
statement noting that on December 18, 2014 she observed appellant enter the conference room.
She asserted that appellant was asked to leave the room and did so. R.N. then asked A.B. to call
security, which she did. A.B. noted that appellant was in the hallway after leaving the conference
room and did not raise her voice or make noise. She contended that appellant did not cause any
commotion or disturbance from the time when she left the conference room until the police
removed her from the area.
Appellant provided a copy of the FLRA-approved settlement agreement signed by the
acting regional director of the employing establishment on January 23, 2016 and the FLRA notice
to employees which was signed by the employing establishment’s medical center director on
January 24, 2016. Under the FLRA settlement agreement, the employing establishment was
required to ensure that all references to the police encounter with appellant o n December 18, 2014
was expunged from its records, and forbidden to rely on this incident in any future action. It was
also required to post the following notice to all employees:
“On or about December 18, 2014, [the employing establishment] police removed
[appellant] from a location where she was waiting for an employee to exit a
meeting. The [FLRA] statute prohibits an agency from interfering with an
employee’s exercise of protected activity and/or taking an action against an
employee because of the exercise of protected activity.”
The notice further provided that the employing establishment would not interfere with the exercise
of protected activity or take an action against an employee because of the exercise of protected
activity. The notice concluded, “WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute.” (Emphasis in the original.)
On March 17, 2017 the employing establishment responded to appellant’s January 18,
2017 request for reconsideration. In a statement dated November 3, 2015, A.B., noted that she
was sitting at her desk on December 18, 2014 near room 523 at the employing establishment. She
indicated that appellant was standing right in front of her desk and that she was shaken by her
disruptive behavior, including yelling and screaming. A.B. asserted that appellant was asked to
leave the area and refused to go. R.N. requested that she contact the police.
In an e-mail dated May 28, 2015, R.N. asserted that the December 18, 2014 meeting was
not associated with personnel issues, that the union had no vested interest in attending, and that
both R.G. and the union were made aware of these facts prior to the meeting. He indicated that
the union presence was disruptive and unnecessary. R.N. asked the union officials to leave. He
alleged that appellant became confrontational and initially refused to leave the room. Appellant
then agreed to leave the room, but asserted that she would stand immediately outside the door in
an outer office area. Once in the office area, she then demanded identification from R.N. R.N.
asserted that appellant’s demeanor was loud and aggressive. He informed her that this behavior
was inappropriate and again asked her to leave, but she refused. A.B. was asked to summon the
police and activated a panic button. When the police arrived, they asked to see appellant’s
identification. Appellant did not have identification, and the officer escorted her out of the area.

5

R.N. asserted that she was not engaged in protected union activity and that her disruptive behavior
in the outer office work environment was inappropriate.
In an e-mail dated November 23, 2015, Lt. W.C. noted that on December 18, 2014 he was
called to room 523 due to a disruptive situation. He indicated that he contacted someone in the
office who informed him that they were conducting a meeting, that appellant was being disruptive,
and that person requested that she be escorted out of the office as the meeting did not require union
presence. Lt. W.C. asserted that she was argumentative toward the staff, loud, and disruptive. He
advised appellant that she needed to leave the area and she became argumentative toward him and
told him that it was her right to be in the office. Lt. W.C. escorted her to the union office and
directed her actions to the union president. He alleged that appellant accused him of not knowing
how to do his job.
On April 26, 2017 OWCP provided appellant with a copy of the employing establishment’s
responses and afforded her 20 days to submit comments. On May 15, 2017 appellant responded
and asserted that in the FLRA posting, the employing establishment admitted to interfering with
protected activity and interfering with appellant’s exercise of her rights in accordance with FLRA
statute. She further noted that the settlement agreement included that her interactions with the
employing establishment police on December 18, 2014 would be expunged from the employing
establishment’s records.
By decision dated June 27, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration,
finding that it was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. It noted that
her reconsideration request was received on January 20, 2017. In a memorandum of telephone
call (Form CA-110) dated September 7, 2017, OWCP’s claims examiner noted reviewing
appellant’s claim file and found that her requests for reconsideration were entered into the
Integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS) on January 18, 19, and 20, 2017.
The claims examiner directed her to either appeal to the Board or to make an additional request
for reconsideration which would not be timely, but noted that the date of her original request for
reconsideration would establish clear evidence of error.
On September 20, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration of the January 19, 2016
decision. She noted that her initial request for reconsideration was received by OWCP on
January 18, 2017 and therefore, was timely.
By decision dated January 8, 2018, OWCP reviewed the merits of appellant’s claim but
denied modification of its January 19, 2016 decision. It found that she had submitted no evidence
to demonstrate that the employing establishment acted in an abusive or improper manner in regard
to the accepted December 18, 2014 employment incident. OWCP further found that the FLRA
settlement agreement did not include an admission of error or abuse on the part of the employing
establishment. It determined that appellant’s emotional reaction was self-generated and not due
to a compensable factor of her employment.
Appellant appealed to the Board, and in its May 1, 2019 decision, 3 the Board set aside the
January 8, 2018 decision and remanded the case for OWCP to request that the employing
3

Id.

6

establishment address her use of official time at 11:00 a.m. on December 18, 2014, when she
alleged that her injury occurred. The Board further directed OWCP to require that the employing
establishment provide documentation establishing whether she was performing a representational
function at the fact-finding interview on December 14, 2018. The Board determined that if the
employing establishment found that appellant was not on official time, she should be advised of
this finding and provided an opportunity to submit relevant evidence on the issues. Following any
further development, OWCP was to issue a de novo decision.
In a May 22, 2019 development letter, OWCP requested that the employing establishment
address appellant’s use of official time on December 18, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. and to provide
documentation establishing her representational function. It further requested that the employing
establishment provide documentation, in the form of appropriate regulations, executive order, or
union agreement covering the specific situation. OWCP noted that in the absence of a full reply
from the employing establishment, it could accept appellant’s allegations as factual.
In a June 28, 2019 letter, the employing establishment responded and asserted that
appellant was not performing a union representational function during the time of her alleged
workplace injury on December 18, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. It noted that prior to the alleged incident,
appellant had represented R.G. in a grievance filed on December 1, 2014. In addressing this
grievance, R.G. also raised quality of medical care concerns. On December 12, 2014 W.C., the
Chief of Staff and the employing establishment deciding official, partially accepted the grievance
and directed the employing establishment to initiate an independent fact-finding by a qualified
pathologist into the issues raised by R.G. regarding validation of laboratory studies which resulted
in the medical quality review scheduled on December 18, 2014. The employing establishment
asserted that on December 18, 2014 it was addressing R.G.’s concerns to ensure improvement in
quality medical care at the facility in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7114; 38 U.S.C. §§ 5705, 7311,
and 7422, and its medical bylaws, Article IX. It further asserted that the medical quality review
was conducted for the sole purpose of addressing concerns in medical quality raised by R.G. and
that anything he disclosed during the medical quality review was protected information and could
not be used for any purpose other than improving medical quality of care. The employing
establishment asserted that there was no right to union representation as the medical quality review
was not about R.G., his practice, performance, conduct, or any issues specified as a ba sis for the
grievance.
The employing establishment noted that as union vice president, appellant was authorized
80 percent official time to perform union duties. However, it asserted that on December 18, 2014
at 11:00 a.m. R.G. was not entitled to union representation and appellant was not authorized to
attend the medical quality review. The employing establishment asserted that under 5 U.S.C.
§ 7114, representational rights were limited to formal discussion of a grievance or personnel
policy, practices or general condition of employment, or any examination of an employee in
connection with an investigation if the employee reasonably believes that the examination could
result in disciplinary action and if the employee requests representation. It contended that R.G.
had no reasonable expectation of disciplinary action from the December 18, 2014 medical quality
review. The employing establishment asserted that, therefore, it was under no obligation to allow
union representation during the medical quality review as it was in no way an investigation of R.G.

7

The employing establishment provided copies of Article 49 of the union ’s rights and
privileges, the Bylaws and Rules of the Medical Staff of the employing establishment, Article IX;
5 U.S.C. § 7114, 30 U.S.C. §§ 5705, 7311, and 7422, the grievance filed by R.G. on December 1,
2014, and the response dated December 12, 2014 from W.C.
In a July 5, 2019 response, appellant asserted that she was performing union representation
for R.G. on December 18, 2014. She noted her prior representation of R.G. which had begun with
written counseling he received on October 7, 2014 during his probationary period. Appellant
noted that beginning on November 10, 2014 R.G. was undergoing a Focused Professional Practice
Evaluation (FPPE) which evaluated his ability to communicate effectively with staff, his
productivity in areas requiring close interaction with colleagues, and his professional behavior.
The FPPE required him to institute implementation of calculated ionized calcium in the laboratory
test menu, implemental qualitative confirmation assays for amphetamine, benzodiazepine, and
opiates, as well as correlate immunosuppressant drug testing. She asserted that each of these areas
was directly implicated during the December 18, 2014 medical quality review. Appellant asserted
that while the employing establishment contended that her answers during the medical quality
review could not be used against him, he was asked to resign shortly thereafter. She further
asserted that at the time of the medical quality review he had a reasonable belief that his
participation in this investigation could result in disciplinary action.
Appellant provided a May 3, 2012 letter from the union president indicating that beginning
September 2012 appellant would be on 100 percent official time.
In an undated and unsigned statement, R.G. noted that on October 9, 2014 a critical
component on chemistry analyzers, the indirect ion selective electrodes (ISE) which allowed
measurements of serum, plasma sodium, potassium, and chloride was updated, but not properly
validated. He formulated a plan to repair to the validation of ISE and on December 3, 2014 alerted
W.C. to his concerns about the quality of laboratory testing. W.C. commenced a 38 U.S.C. § 5705
medical quality assurance program review scheduled for December 18, 2014 with the interviewer.
R.G. was informed that his disclosures would not and could not result in a punitive action against
him or other employees so he attended the meeting with union representation which was removed
during the course of the meeting. He alleged that he was then subjected to retaliation for disclosing
a medical quality assurance issue in the December 18, 2014 meeting, for which he was explicitly
told he could not be punished.
By decision dated July 18, 2019, OWCP again denied appellant’s emotional condition
claim finding that the quality review was not associated with a grievance, a change in work
conditions or an investigation where a potential disciplinary action could have been imposed of
misconduct. It determined that she, therefore, was not on official time as a union representative at
the time her alleged emotional condition occurred. OWCP concluded, therefore, that appellant
had not sustained an emotional condition in the performance of duty.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is
somehow related to one’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’

8

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. 4
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. 5
An employee’s emotional reaction to administrative or personnel matters generally falls
outside FECA’s scope.6 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.7 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. 8
The Board has adhered to the principle that union activities are personal in nature and are
not considered to be within the course of employment. 9 Attendance at a union meeting, for
example, is exclusively for the personal benefit of the employee and devoid of any mutual
employer-employee benefit that would bring it within the course of employment. 10
The Board has recognized an exception to this general rule. Employees performing
representational functions which entitle them to official time are considered to be in the
performance of duty if injured during the performance of those functions. 11 The underlying
rationale for this exception is that an activity undertaken by an employee in the capacity of a union
official may simultaneously serve the interest of the employer. 12 OWCP’s procedures indicate that
representational functions include authorized activities undertaken by employees on behalf of

4

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).
5

Lillian Cutler, id.

6

G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018); Andrew J. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170, 171 (2001);
Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421, 423 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB
566 (1991).
7

C.M., Docket No. 17-1076 (issued November 14, 2018); David C. Lindsey, Jr., 56 ECAB 263, 268 (2005)
Thomas D. McEuen, id.
8

Id.

9

J.G., Docket No. 17-1948 (issued September 13, 2018); Jimmy E. Norred, 36 ECAB 726 (1985).

10

J.G., id.; C.M., Docket No. 10-0753 (issued December 15, 2010).

11
J.G., supra note 9; R.F., Docket No. 14-0770 (issued September 29, 2015) (those on official time performing
activities related to the internal business of a labor organization such as soliciting new members or collecting dues are
not considered to be in the performance of duty. The singular fact that one is on paid official time for union
representation is not enough to establish that every interaction during such official time is within the performance of
duty).
12

J.G., supra note 9; Marie Boylan, 45 ECAB 338, 342-43 (1994).

9

other employees pursuant to such employees’ right to representation under statute, regulation,
executive order, or terms of a collective bargaining agreement.13
OWCP’s procedures discuss union representational functions and official time. 14 There
are specific guidelines for case development when union activity may be involved:
“When an employee claims to have been injured while performing representational
functions, an inquiry should be made to the official superior to determine whether
the employee had been granted official time or, in emergency cases, would have
been granted ‘official time’ if there had been time to request it. If so, the claimant
should be considered to have been in the performance of duty. 15
“If [an] agency states that the employee was not performing an activity for which
official time is allowed, [OWCP] should issue a letter warning [appellant] that the
case will be denied unless additional information is provided, and allowing [30]
days for a response. If there is no timely response from [appellant], a formal
decision should be issued on the grounds that [appellant] is not in the performance
of duty.
“If [appellant] provides evidence contradicting the [employing establishment’s]
position, the official superior should be asked to reply to this evidence, providing
documentation in the form of appropriate regulations, executive order or union
agreement covering the specific situation. [OWCP] will accept the ruling of the
[employing establishment] as to whether a representative was entitled to official
time unless the ruling is later overturned by a duly authorized appellate body.”16
ANALYSIS
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.
Appellant alleged that she sustained an emotional condition when the employing
establishment demanded that she leave a medical quality review meeting and the employing
establishment police escorted her from the hallway outside of the meeting while she was
performing representational union activities on December 18, 2014.
The first issue is whether appellant was in the performance of duty at the time of the alleged
employment incident. In its June 28, 2019 letter, the employing establishment acknowledged that
she utilized official time for 80 percent of her time. It did not specifically address appellant’s
official time schedule and whether or not she was on official time at 11:00 a.m. on
13

See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Performance of Duty, Chapter 2.804.16 (July 1997).

14

Id.

15

Id.

16

Id.

10

December 18, 2014. Appellant submitted a May 3, 2012 letter from the union president indicating
that, beginning September 2012, she would be on 100 percent official time and a January 3, 2017
letter from B.A., the union president, in which she noted that she was appellant’s supervisor and
that appellant was entitled to official time at the time of her injury. The Board thus finds that the
weight of the evidence of record establishes that appellant was on official time on December 18,
2014 at the time of the alleged employment incident.
The Board has held that the singular fact that one is on paid official time is not enough to
establish that every interaction during such official time is within the performance of duty. 17 The
Board has also required that a claimant be performing a mutually beneficial activity such as a
representational function. 18 The facts of this case establish that the nature of the activity in which
appellant was engaged was representational and therefore of mutual benefit to the union and her
employer.19 Representational functions include authorized activities undertaken by employees on
behalf of other employees pursuant to such employees’ right to representation under statute,
regulation, executive order, or terms of a collective bargaining agreement. 20
The alleged employment incident occurred when appellant was instructed to leave the
medical quality review meeting on December 18, 2014 after she indicated that she would file an
unfair labor practice complaint against the ejecting official, R.N. Appellant further alleged that
while she was waiting outside the meeting room for R.G. to emerge, and checking her cellphone
for J.M.’s telephone number to request advice, the employing establishment police escorted her
back to her office on a different floor. Further, the FLRA-approved settlement agreement indicated
that appellant was acting in a representational capacity when the employing esta blishment police
removed her from the meeting location. As appellant was on official time and performing
representational functions, the Board finds that she was in the performance of duty at the time of
the December 18, 2014 employment incident. 21
While the Board finds that appellant was in the performance of duty at the time of the
December 18, 2014 incident, she must also establish a compensable factor of employment.
Appellant has not attributed her emotional condition to any of the regular or specially
assigned duties of her position as a nurse. Rather, she has alleged error and abuse in administrative
matters by the employing establishment. As a general rule, a claimant’s reaction to administrative

17

J.S., Docket No. 14-1532 (issued December 4, 2015).

18

J.G., supra note 9; Ray C. Van Tassell, Jr., 44 ECAB 316 (1992).

19

See Bernard Redmond, 45 ECAB 298 (1994); Ray C. Van Tassell, Jr., id. (the Board has adopted a mutual benefit
approach to determining if union activities occurred in the performance of duty, therefore activities related to the
internal business of a labor organization, such as soliciting new members or collecting dues are not included).
20

Marie Boylan, 45 ECAB 338 (1994).

21

Wayne F. Therrien, Docket No. 97-2604 (issued December 9, 1999). See also Kelly Y. Simpson, 57 ECAB 197
(2005) (the Board found that the claimant was in a representational status at the time of her injury despite, the
employing establishment’s disagreement).

11

or personnel matters falls outside the scope of FECA. 22 Absent evidence establishing error or
abuse, a claimant’s disagreement or dislike of a managerial action is not a compensable factor of
employment. Appellant has submitted corroborative evidence of error or abuse in the
administrative actions of the employing establishment demanding that she leave the medical
quality review meeting and the employing establishment police escorting her from the hallway. In
this regard, the FLRA-approved settlement agreement required the employing establishment to
expunge all references to the encounter between appellant and its police from its records and
forbade it to rely on this incident in any future action. It also required the employing establishment
to post a notice that on or about December 18, 2014, the employing establishment police had
removed appellant from a location where she was waiting for an employee to exit a meeting. It
noted that its statute prohibited an agency from interfering with an employee ’s exercise of
protected activity and/or taking an action against an employee because of the exercise of protected
activity. The notice concluded, “WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights assured by the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute.” (Emphasis in the original.)
The Board thus finds that appellant has submitted sufficient evidence to establish error or
abuse by the employing establishment in demanding that she leave the medical quality review
meeting and escorting her from the hallway on December 18, 2014. As appellant has established
a compensable employment factor the case presents a medical question regarding whether her
emotional condition resulted from the compensable employment factor. OWCP determined that
there were no compensable employment factors and thus did not analyze or develop the medical
evidence. The case will be remanded to OWCP for this purpose. 23 After such further development
as deemed necessary, it should issue a de novo decision on this matter.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision.

22

E.M., Docket No. 19-0156 (issued May 23, 2019),

23

Id.; see also K.J., Docket No. 17-1851 (issued September 25, 2019); T.F., Docket No. 12-0439 (issued
August 20, 2012).

12

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 18, 2019 decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs is set aside. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
this decision of the Board.
Issued: March 17, 2022
Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

13


United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
__________________________________________
D.P., Appellant
and
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,
Des Moines, IL, Employer
__________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Appearances:
Appellant, pro se
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

Docket No. 10-1678
Issued: April 4, 2011

Case Submitted on the Record

DECISION AND ORDER
Before:
RICHARD J. DASCHBACH, Chief Judge
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Judge
JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION
On June 9, 2010 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 1, 2010 schedule award
decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c)
and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the schedule award determination.
ISSUE
The issue is whether appellant met her burden of proof to establish that she sustained
more than a five percent permanent impairment of her right upper extremity and a five percent
permanent impairment of the left upper extremity.
FACTUAL HISTORY
On July 1, 1992 appellant, then a 44-year-old distribution clerk, filed an occupational
disease claim alleging that she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in the performance of

duty. On April 29, 1993 the Office accepted her claim for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.1
Appellant received compensation benefits.
Appellant’s treating physician, Dr. Martin Luken, a Board-certified neurological surgeon,
performed a left carpal tunnel release on April 30, 2008 and a right carpal tunnel release on
July 2, 2008.
On May 14, 2009 appellant filed a Form CA-7 claim for a schedule award.
On May 27, 2009 the Office requested that Dr. Luken provide an impairment rating
utilizing the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,
(6th ed. 2009) (hereinafter, A.M.A., Guides).
In a report dated June 22, 2009, Dr. Luken noted that he had followed appellant for
approximately one year for her right carpal tunnel release and approximately 14 months
following the same operation on the left. He advised that her “agonizingly painful nocturnal
awakenings which she experienced preoperatively” had completely resolved in the aftermath of
her surgery. Dr. Luken noted that appellant related that the sensation in her hands continued to
be significantly impaired and caused her a great deal of distress; however, she managed to
continue working restricted duty despite engaging in repetitive movements which exacerbated
her symptoms. He examined her and determined that her hands “healed beautifully, though both
wrists are a bit tender to percussion, the right more so than the left, with no distinct distal Tinel’s
sign.” Dr. Luken reviewed a February 12, 2009 electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction
study (NCS) of the bilateral upper extremity conducted by Dr. Adeel Ahmad, a Board-certified
physiatrist, and noted that it revealed “bilateral severe carpal tunnel syndrome the severity of the
left motor response has increased since the last EMG performed on December 21, 2007, whereas
the right motor responses remain absent ... the sensory responses seem to be similar in severity to
the last test.” He also reviewed a February 18, 2009 functional capacity evaluation (FCE) and
explained that it revealed that appellant “failed 5/70 validity criteria for upper extremity hand
and pinch grip testing, indicating a sub maximal effort was given.” Additionally, Dr. Luken
advised that it indicated that she could “return to light/medium employment,” and advised that
the restrictions and limitations were “unable to be made secondary to the inconsistencies
previously mentioned.” He also noted that appellant did not believe that her persisting
symptoms were severe enough to undergo another operation.
In a July 29, 2009 report, the Office medical adviser noted appellant’s history of injury
and treatment and the June 22, 2009 report from Dr. Luken. He noted Dr. Luken’s findings that
appellant had “complete resolvement of nocturnal wrist pain bilaterally.” The Office medical
adviser also noted that it was approximately one year since her post carpal tunnel release and that
appellant continued to have abnormality in sensation of bilateral wrists in the median nerve
distribution. He advised that following an FCE evaluation she was placed on restricted work
duties. The Office medical adviser utilized the A.M.A., Guides and referred to Table 15-23.2 He
determined that appellant’s symptoms were consistent with a Grade Modifier 2 and that she had
five percent bilateral upper extremity impairment.
1

The Office also accepted appellant’s claim for a recurrence of disability on December 1, 2000.

2

A.M.A., Guides 449.

2

On August 19, 2009 the Office granted appellant a schedule award for a five percent
permanent impairment of the right upper extremity and a five percent permanent impairment of
the left upper extremity. The award covered the period June 22, 2009 to January 26, 2010.
Appellant requested a review of the written record. In a letter dated September 12, 2009,
she questioned the amount of her schedule award in light of having undergone two surgeries.
Appellant also noted that her EMG of February 12, 2009 revealed that she had no improvement.
She indicated that her lifestyle had dramatically changed. Appellant indicated that she was no
longer able to cook large family dinners because it was too strenuous, that she dropped things
constantly and had trouble grasping things. Furthermore, she noted that she could no longer
drive long distances because her fingers tingled and became numb. Appellant noted that she
needed assistance at work, and it was depressing, especially for someone who once had an
extremely active life. She also indicated that she was seeking a second opinion as the surgery
only provided temporary relief.
Appellant submitted a September 10, 2009 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan of
the right wrist and a September 11, 2009 MRI scan of the left wrist read by Dr. Scott Grossberg,
a Board-certified diagnostic radiologist, whose findings included a small gap in the flexor
retinaculum of each wrist that was suggestive of tissue regrowth status post carpal tunnel
surgery; mild edema without intraneural or perineural enhancement in the median nerve
proximal to the carpal tunnel which was nonspecific. Dr. Grossberg noted that it could be
postsurgical or represent mild inflammation of the median nerve in recurrent carpal tunnel
syndrome. He noted other findings but did not address permanent impairment. Also submitted
were physical therapy records.
In a February 1, 2010 decision, the Office hearing representative affirmed the August 19,
2009 decision.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Section 8107 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act sets forth the number of
weeks of compensation to be paid for the permanent loss of use of specified members, functions
and organs of the body. The Act, however, does not specify the manner by which the percentage
loss of a member, function or organ shall be determined. To ensure consistent results and equal
justice under the law, good administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards
applicable to all claimants. The implementing regulations have adopted the A.M.A., Guides as
the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.3 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule
awards are determined in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2008). Office procedures
provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file should be routed to the
Office medical adviser for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage of impairment in
accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with the Office medical adviser providing rationale for the
percentage of impairment specified.4

3

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

4

A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2008), 494-531; see J.B., Docket No. 09-2191 (issued May 14, 2010).

3

ANALYSIS
The Office accepted that appellant sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Appellant
underwent a left carpal tunnel release on April 30, 2008 and a right carpal tunnel release on
July 2, 2008. She claimed a schedule award on May 14, 2009. In a letter dated May 27, 2009,
the Office requested that Dr. Luken provide an impairment rating utilizing the A.M.A., Guides.
The Office received a June 22, 2009 report, in which Dr. Luken provided findings,
including that appellant reported continued impaired sensation in her hands and that an EMG
showed bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. However, Dr. Luken did not provide an impairment
rating. To obtain an impairment rating, the Office forwarded his report to an Office medical
adviser for review.
An Office medical adviser submitted a July 29, 2009 report following the assessment
formula of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. He utilized the clinical findings of
Dr. Luken, the treating physician, who noted that appellant continued to have abnormality in
sensation of bilateral wrists in a median nerve distribution. The Office medical adviser
determined that appellant’s findings were consistent with a Grade Modifier 2 according to Table
15 to 23 for abnormal sensation. He found that this represented five percent impairment of each
upper extremity pursuant to the A.M.A., Guides.
The Board finds that the Office medical adviser applied the appropriate tables and
grading schemes of the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides to Dr. Luken’s clinical findings.
There is no medical evidence of record demonstrating a greater percentage of permanent
impairment. Although appellant submitted additional medical evidence following her request for
a review of the written record, this evidence did not rate impairment of appellant’s arms under
the A.M.A., Guides.5 The Office properly relied on the Office medical adviser’s assessment of a
five percent impairment of each upper extremity based on the sixth edition of the A.M.A.,
Guides. Thus, appellant has not established that he sustained more than a five percent
impairment of the right or left upper extremity.
On appeal, appellant questioned the amount of her award, asserted that her “over all wellbeing is challenged” and noted that she was limited in what she could do. As noted above, there
is no medical evidence demonstrating a greater percentage of permanent impairment under the
A.M.A., Guides. The Board has also held that factors such as employability or limitations on
daily activities have no bearing on the calculation of impairment.6
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish that she
sustained more than a five percent permanent impairment of her right upper extremity and a five
percent permanent impairment of the left upper extremity.
5

Also received were physical therapy records. However, physical therapists are not competent to render a
medical opinion under the Act. E.K., Docket No. 09-1827 (issued April 21, 2010). See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2).
6

J.H., Docket No. 08-2432 (issued June 15, 2009).

4

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs dated February 1, 2010 is affirmed.
Issued: April 4, 2011
Washington, DC

Richard J. Daschbach, Chief Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

5