K.B. and Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (Board decision, February 27, 2025)

ECAB final decision. The Board affirmed OWCP’s denial because the record did not establish a compensable workplace factor. 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

An IRS employee claimed an emotional condition after an administrative assistant emailed a form containing her Social Security number to five managers. She argued that the disclosure was intentional and that management did not safeguard the information. The Board found the evidence did not establish intentional misconduct or a failure to safeguard the form. It treated the incident as an administrative matter without proven error or abuse and affirmed denial of the claim.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: FECA; 5 U.S.C. § 8101.
• Outcome: Denial of the emotional-condition claim affirmed.
• Key point: The record did not establish error or abuse in handling the emailed form.

Full text (ECAB public release)

United States Department of Labor
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

________
)
K.B., Appellant
)
)
and ) Docket No. 25-0229
)
Issued: February 27, 2025
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
)
Kansas City, MO, Employer
)
__________ )

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record
Melford V. McCormick, Esq., for the appellant1
Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:
ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge
PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On January 8, 2025, appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a November 22, 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.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish an emotional/stress-related condition in the performance of duty on December 9, 2016, as alleged.

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.
FACTUAL HISTORY

This case has previously been before the Board.3 The facts and circumstances of the case as set forth in the Board’s prior decisions are incorporated herein by reference. The relevant facts are as follows.

On December 20, 2016, appellant, then a 49-year-old supervisory contact representative, filed a traumatic injury claim (Form CA-1) alleging that she sustained an emotional/stress-related condition due to an administrative assistant circulating a document with her social security number (SSN) “in plain view for all to see” on December 9, 2016 while in the performance of duty. She asserted that she sustained depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to this incident. Appellant stopped work on December 19, 2016. OWCP assigned the claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx672. 4

The employing establishment controverted the claim.

In a January 20, 2017 development letter, OWCP notified appellant of the deficiencies of her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a questionnaire for her completion. OWCP afforded appellant 30 days to respond.

In a February 16, 2017 response, appellant asserted that, on December 9, 2016, the employing establishment intentionally circulated a manual refund signature authorization form (Form 14031), which contained her SSN.

In a January 18, 2017 letter, a human resources specialist for the employing establishment discussed the circumstances surrounding the Form 14031 that contained appellant’s SSN.

In a February 13, 2017 letter, an operations manager for the employing establishment indicated that the Form 14031 completed by appellant was sent to several managers by e -mail to show what a correctly completed Form 14031 looked like, but that appellant’s SSN was mistakenly left on the form.

Appellant submitted copies of e-mails, dated in December 2016, regarding the completion of the Form 14031, and a January 11, 2017 e-mail sent to appellant by her counsel of record at the time. An e-mail dated December 9, 2016 indicates that five managers received appellant’s Form 14031 by e-mail.

In a January 12, 2017 report, Lester E. Blue, Jr., Ph.D., an attending clinical psychologist, indicated that he had treated appellant since November 12, 2016. He noted that appellant reported experiencing fear and panic after her SSN number was released by an administrative assistant at work. Dr. Blue diagnosed major depressive order and panic disorder. In a February 15, 2017 attending physician’s report (Form CA-20), he indicated that appellant was totally disabled from work from December 19, 2016 through March 25, 2017.

3
Docket No. 18-1392 (issued January 15, 2019).
4
Appellant previously filed an emotional disease claim on November 1, 2016 alleging that she sustained emotional/stress-related conditions due to factors of her federal employment, including error and abuse on the part of the employing establishment. OWCP assigned that claim OWCP File No. xxxxxx338. Appellant’s claims have not been administratively combined.

2
By decision dated February 24, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim, finding that she had not established a compensable employment factor.

On June 6, 2017, appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of the February 24, 2017 decision. In an accompanying memorandum, appellant’s then-counsel argued that the distribution of the Form 14031 with appellant’s SSN constituted a compensable employment factor. Appellant submitted additional evidence in support of her claim, including several administrative documents and e-mails dated between 2011 and 2016 regarding the Form 14031.

By decision dated July 24, 2017, OWCP denied modification of its February 24, 2017 decision.

On December 26, 2017, appellant, through counsel, requested reconsideration of OWCP’s July 24, 2017 decision. Appellant submitted a July 28, 2017 report, wherein Dr. Blue discussed her continuing psychotherapy and diagnosed major depressive disorder (recurrent) and PTSD.

By decision dated January 10, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

On March 2, 2018, appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration of OWCP’s July 24, 2017 decision.

In support thereof, appellant submitted treatment notes of Dr. Blue dated between November 2016 and January 2018.

In a January 29, 2018 report, Dr. Karla Houston-Gray, an attending Board-certified internist, indicated that appellant reported experiencing stress in the workplace.

By decision dated June 21, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of her claim, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a). Appellant, through counsel, appealed to the Board. By decision dated January 15, 2019,5 the Board affirmed OWCP’s June 21, 2018 nonmerit decision.

On September 13, 2023, appellant, through counsel, again requested reconsideration.
Counsel argued that OWCP erred when it denied appellant’s claim for failure to establish a compensable employment factor.

By decision dated May 21, 2024, OWCP vacated its July 24, 2017 decision, finding that appellant established clear evidence of error as OWCP had incorrectly denied the claim on the factual component of the case. It accepted that, on December 9, 2016, a Form 14031 with appellant’s full SSN was accidentally e-mailed to five managers at the employing establishment. OWCP noted that a de novo decision addressing the performance of duty element would be issued.

5
Supra note 3.

3
By de novo decision dated May 21, 2024, OWCP again denied appellant’s emotional/stress-related condition claim, finding that she had not established a compensable employment factor.

On June 8, 2024, appellant, through counsel, requested an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and Review.

A hearing was held on September 9, 2024. Appellant testified as to her belief that the administrative assistant who sent the e-mail on December 9, 2016 “might have intentionally” transmitted her SSN. She asserted that this was manifested by the fact that she asked the assistant to recall the e-mail when read receipts showed that no one had opened it yet, but that the assistant refused and stated that she thought it was too late to do so.

By decision dated November 22, 2024, OWCP’s hearing representative affirmed OWCP’s May 21, 2024 decision.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA 6 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. 7 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. 8

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. 9

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. 10 On the other hand, the disability is not covered where it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-

6
5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
7
A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).
8
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). 9 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). 10 Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).

4 in-force or his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a particular position. 11

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. 12 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. 13

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.14 Mere perceptions of harassment are not compensable under FECA. 15

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional/stress-related condition in the performance of duty on December 9, 2016, as alleged.

As appellant alleged that she sustained a work-related emotional/stress-related condition, the Board must initially determine whether she has established a compensable employment factor under FECA. The Board notes that her allegations do not directly relate to her regular or specially assigned duties pursuant to Lillian Cutler.16 Rather, appellant has alleged that the employing establishment committed error and abuse with respect to an administrative/personnel matter.

Specifically, appellant alleged that on December 9, 2016 an administrative assistant e- mailed a Form 14031 containing her full SSN to five managers at the employing establishment. She testified during the September 9, 2024 oral hearing that the administrative assistant “might have intentionally” e-mailed her SSN to the five managers, asserting that such intent was demonstrated because the assistant did not attempt to recall the e-mail upon her request. However, there is no evidence that the employing establishment committed error or abuse, as appellant has not established that the action was intentional or that the managers who received the Form 14031 failed to safeguard appellant’s private information. Thus, the Board finds that she has not established a compensable employment factor in this regard.

11
A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).
12
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).
13
L.R., Docket No. 23-0925 (issued June 20, 2024); M.A., Docket No. 19-1017 (issued December 4, 2019).
14
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).
15
Id.
16
See supra note 10.

5
As the Board finds that appellant has not established a compensable employment factor, it is not necessary to consider the medical evidence of record. 17

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met her burden of proof to establish an emotional/stress-related condition in the performance of duty on December 9, 2016, as alleged.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 22, 2024 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 18

Issued: February 27, 2025
Washington, DC

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

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

Janice B. Askin, Judge
Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

17
See B.O., Docket No. 17-1986 (issued January 18, 2019); Margaret S. Krzycki, 43 ECAB 496, 502-03 (1992).
18
Upon return of the case record, OWCP may consider administratively combining the present claim with OWCP File No. xxxxxx338.

6