V.M. and U.S. Postal Service, Cardiss Collins Post Office (Board decision, May 16, 2025)

ECAB remand decision. The Board reversed OWCP's finding that no compensable work factor was established and remanded for medical review. Compensation eligibility remains unresolved. A party may petition the Board for reconsideration within 30 days of issuance unless this order specifies another period, under 20 C.F.R. § 501.7(a). FECA compensation decisions are generally not subject to court review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b).

Plain-English summary

A postal machine operator reported an emotional condition after a coworker struck her shoulder at work. OWCP found no compensable work factor. The Board found that the workplace contact was established and qualified as a compensable factor, reversing OWCP's ruling. It remanded for review of the medical evidence and a new decision.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
• Outcome: No-work-factor finding reversed; emotional-condition claim remanded.
• Key point: Established physical contact at work could qualify as a compensable factor.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
V.M., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0178
)
Issued: May 16, 2025
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CARDISS COLLINS )
POST OFFICE, Chicago, IL, Employer )
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Stephanie Leet, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge
VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On December 12, 2024, appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 4, 2024 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act2 (FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of this case. 3

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.
3
The Board notes that, following the December 4, 2024 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedures provides: “The Board’s review of a case is limited to the evidence in the case record that was before OWCP at the time of its final decision. Evidence not before OWCP will not be considered by the Board for the first time on appeal.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1). Thus, the Board is precluded from reviewing this additional evidence for the first time on appeal. Id.
ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional/ stress-related condition in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 29, 2023, appellant, then a 34-year-old distribution machine operator, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained emotional/stress-related conditions due to factors of her federal employment. She explained that after she was attacked, it was difficult for her to work and perform daily activities. Appellant further explained that she feared being attacked again. She noted that she first became aware of her claimed condition on February 23, 2021, and realized its relation to her federal employment on May 1, 2021. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx381. 4

In a statement received by OWCP on February 25, 2021, appellant indicated that on February 23, 2021, A.H., bumped into her hard and that she was “caught off guard with her aggressiveness.”

In an undated statement received by OWCP on February 25, 2021, D.M. stated, “This month February 23, 2021[,] I witness[ed] this situation [appellant] walked past her [sic], these employees did not touch. Especially to the point that she is claiming. ”

Appellant submitted an August 10, 2023 report wherein Dr. Laura B. Boyd, Board- certified in family medicine, indicated that appellant reported developing anxiety in April 2021 due to the February 23, 2021 right shoulder injury.

In an October 23, 2023 statement, appellant indicated that she did not expect to be attacked while on the job. She advised that on February 23, 2021 she was walking behind D.M. when he stopped to talk to an individual, she could hear but not see. Appellant continued to walk behind D.M. and A.H. then struck her right shoulder with force, causing a right shoulder contusion/rotator cuff strain. She reported that, after the incident, she started to be afraid to go to work and avoided interacting with people as much as possible so that she would not get attacked again. Appellant indicated that she suffered fatigue from lack of sleep and dizziness due to the fact that she “would barely eat.”

Appellant also submitted reports dated May 3, 2021 through July 15, 2023, wherein Dr. Boyd reported physical examination findings and diagnosed anxiety. In these reports, she detailed the nature of appellant’s reported stressors and symptoms. On May 3, 2021, appellant advised that she felt hot, dizzy, and anxious two days prior at work. On June 7, 2021, she 4 Under a separate claim, OWCP File No. xxxxxx893, appellant had previously filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging an injury on January 15, 2021, when a coworker ran over her left foot with a hand jack while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for contusion of left lesser toes without damage to the nails. Under OWCP File No. xxxxxx132, appellant had previously filed a Form CA-1 alleging that on February 23, 2021 she was walking with D.M., her supervisor, when A.H., a coworker, caused injury by bumping into her right shoulder while in the performance of duty. OWCP accepted the claim for right shoulder contusion and right rotator cuff strain.

2 reported that her “anxiety with work” was better. On September 7, 2021, appellant indicated that stressors at work contributed to her symptoms, but that work was better as she was “in a different part of work.” On December 1, 2021, she reported experiencing more anxiety at work. On March 7, 2022, appellant discussed dealing with more panic attacks for approximately six days, noting that she felt uncomfortably warm and panicked at work. On October 6, 2022, she reported that she was feeling more anxiety. On May 16, 2023, appellant indicated that her anxiety was high and, on July 15, 2023, she asserted her anxiety during the past year “has all been related to her shoulder injury and the effects on her life.”

In a letter dated October 19, 2023, Dr. Boyd advised that appellant had no anxiety when she saw her on February 17, 2021. Appellant reported that she was injured at work on February 23, 2021, and began receiving treatment from an orthopedist for her right shoulder injury in April 2021. Dr. Boyd indicated that she visited her again on May 3, 2021 for “new onset anxiety attacks that started at work.” At that time, appellant reported that a coworker attacked her on February 23, 2021, causing a right shoulder injury. Dr. Boyd stated, “That attack directly caused her anxiety to start.” She indicated that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) developed after experiencing or witnessing a scary, shocking, terrifying, or dangerous event, usually involving a situation where one’s life has been threatened, or severe injury has occurred. Dr. Boyd opined, “[Appellant’s] injury at work triggered this disorder and anxiety. Her anxiety was always triggered at work due to injury that occurred.”

In an October 21, 2023 note, Dr. Boyd indicated that she had been providing appellant cognitive behavioral therapy focused on reducing symptoms of trauma and generalized anxiety disorder since February 2022. She noted that appellant reported her symptoms were triggered by her employment injury over a year prior to when they started working together. Dr. Boyd advised that appellant’s symptoms affected her ability to go to work and included severe anxiety, loss of appetite, nervousness, difficulty sleeping, ruminating thoughts, difficulty focusing, feelings of guilt, and low motivation.

Appellant also submitted June 15 and December 5, 2022 reports, wherein Joanna Rios and Karen Kowalczyk, both registered nurses, diagnosed anxiety as the primary condition.

In a January 9, 2024 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her emotional/stress-related condition claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 60 days to respond. In a separate development letter of even date, it requested that the employing establishment provide comments from a knowledgeable supervisor regarding appellant’s allegations. OWCP afforded the employing establishment 30 days to respond.

In a statement, received by OWCP on February 2, 2024, appellant indicated that she did not expect to be attacked while on the job on February 23, 2021. She related that she was walking behind D.M. when he stopped to talk to an individual she could hear but not see. Appellant continued to walk behind D.M. and A.H. then struck her right shoulder with force, causing a right shoulder contusion/rotator cuff strain. She advised that when she drove to the hospital on the date of injury, she felt “[her] heart beating out of [her] body.” Appellant indicated that, thereafter, she would feel anxious at work and immediately had to go somewhere else to catch her breath at times when she was working with a group of people. She described

3 her symptoms after the injury, including lack of sleep and dizziness from walking into work to start her shift. Appellant indicated that, on May 1, 2021, she experienced an anxiety attack while on duty, noting that it “took management several hours to let me leave because they were understaffed at work.” She discussed her treatment, advising that she saw Dr. Boyd on May 3, 2021, and that therapy sessions and time on leave from work had helped her.

In a February 8, 2024 letter, L.H., an occupational health official with the employing establishment, responded to the January 9, 2024 development letter and challenged appellant’s claim for a work-related emotional/stress-related condition. She maintained that appellant was “working in to bump” her coworker, and that she had been working in a different area from her coworker. L.H. indicated that appellant left her assignment to walk in the direct path of the coworker “she did not like and created a hostile work environment but also a way to be stricken purposely on her own regard.” She advised that no extra job demands were placed on appellant and that there were no staff shortages affecting her workload.

By decision dated May 9, 2024, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a work-related emotional/stress-related condition claim, finding that she was not in the performance of duty as she had not established a compensable employment factor. 5

On May 31, 2024 appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

During the hearing, held on September 20, 2024, appellant testified that the attack by A.H. on February 23, 2021 made her fear for her safety at work, and caused anxiety and PTSD. She indicated that she had not had any interactions with A.H. prior to February 23, 2021. Regarding the anxiety attack on May 1, 2021, appellant testified that she experienced chest pain and sweating while trying to notify her supervisor about the need to expedite mail. Counsel then testified and maintained that OWCP had confused the January 15, 2021 incident with the February 23, 2021 incident, but she explained that the two incidents had nothing to do with each other. She stated, “[T]his is all relating to the February 23, 2021 accepted case, which dealt with [A.H.], a coworker, striking [appellant] in the shoulder when she had never previously spoken to her.”

In a September 23, 2024 report, Dr. Boyd discussed the February 23, 2021 incident and indicated that appellant suffered from depressed mood, irritability, hypervigilance, and exaggerated startle response, which affected her everyday living.

In a November 1, 2024 statement, counsel further argued that appellant was attacked on February 23, 2021, and that the injury caused her emotional/stress-related condition. She argued that OWCP did not properly evaluate all the relevant factual and medical evidence.

5
On May 10, 2024 OWCP administratively combined OWCP File No. xxxxxx381, regarding the present claim for a work-related emotional/stress-related condition, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx132, regarding the accepted February 23, 2021 right shoulder injury. It designated the latter as the master file.

4
By decision dated December 4, 2024, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s May 9, 2024 decision.6

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 7 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. 8 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. 9

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. 10

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. 11 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. 12

6
OWCP’s hearing representative directed OWCP to administratively combine OWCP File No. xxxxxx893, regarding the accepted January 15, 2021 left toe injury, with the already combined OWCP File Nos. xxxxxx381 and xxxxxx132. OWCP administratively combined these files, with OWCP File No. xxxxxx132 serving as the master file. 7 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
8
A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).
9
20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April 10, 2019); see T.O., Docket No. 18-1012 (issued October 29, 2018); see Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 10 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). 11 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).
12
A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

5
Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee ’s employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than the regular or specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA. 13 Where, however, the evidence demonstrates that the employing establishment either erred or acted abusively in discharging its administrative or personnel responsibilities, such action will be considered a compensable employment factor. 14

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, there must be probative and reliable evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur.15 Mere perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA. 16

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a compensable employment factor.

Appellant alleged that she sustained a work-related emotional/stress-related condition and the Board must initially review whether any alleged incidents and conditions are compensable employment factors under the terms of FECA. 17 She attributed her emotional/stress-related condition, to a Cutler18 factor. Specifically, appellant alleged that, on February 23, 2021, she was walking behind D.M., her supervisor, when he stopped to talk to an individual she could hear but not see. Appellant continued to walk behind D.M. and then A.H., a coworker, struck her right shoulder with force, causing a right shoulder contusion/rotator cuff strain. She indicated that she was surprised by the aggressiveness of A.H. in striking her right shoulder.

The Board has held that conditions related to stress from situations in which an employee is trying to meet his or her position requirements are compensable.19 As appellant was engaging

13
See R.M., Docket No. 19-1088 (issued November 17, 2020); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).
14
R.H., Docket No. 25-0233 (issued March 4, 2025); M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019).
15
See E.G., Docket No. 20-1029 (issued March 18, 2022); S.L., Docket No. 19-0387 (issued October 1, 2019);
S.B., Docket No. 18-1113 (issued February 21, 2019).
16
Id.
17
Y.W., Docket No. 19-1877 (issued April 30, 2020); Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).
18
Supra note 11. See also B.K., Docket No. 23-079 (issued January 18, 2024); L.S., Docket No. 18-1471 (issued February 26, 2020); V.M., Docket No. 15-1080 (issued May 11, 2017); Donney T. Drennon-Gala, 56 ECAB 469 (2005). 19 S.C., Docket No. 20-0603 (issued November 5, 2021); S.S., Docket No. 21-0184 (issued July 14, 2021);
E.A., Docket No. 19-0582 (issued April 22, 2021); T.S., Docket No. 20-1194 (issued April 14, 2021); L.H., Docket No. 18-1217 (issued May 3, 2019); Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, supra note 11.

6 in her regular duties at the time of injury on February 23, 2021, the circumstances of the February 23, 2021 right shoulder injury constitute a compensable employment factor.20

As OWCP found that there were no compensable employment factors, it did not analyze or develop the medical evidence. The case must, therefore, be remanded for consideration of the medical evidence with regard to whether appellant has established an emotional/stress-related condition in the performance of duty causally related to the accepted compensable employment factor.21 After this and other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has met her burden of proof to establish a compensable employment factor.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the December 4, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: May 16, 2025
Washington, DC

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

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

20
L.R., Docket No. 23-0925 (issued June 20, 2024).
21
See B.J., Docket No. 23-1079 (issued March 4, 2024); E.A., Docket No. 19-0582 (issued April 22, 2021).

7