Accommodation Issues or Not, USPS Attorney doesn’t Establish Workers’ Comp Claim

Federal Focus

An attorney for the U.S. Postal Service alleged a series of problems related to her reasonable accommodations, but they didn't show evidence of a compensable employment factor meriting OWCP reconsideration. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

J.D. and U.S. Postal Service, No. 25-0163 (ECAB 05/22/25)

What Happened

An attorney for the U.S. Postal Service filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that she sustained adjustment disorder, chronic insomnia, sleep deprivation, elevated blood pressure, difficulty concentrating, and anxiety due to factors of her federal employment. Specifically, she attributed her condition to the discontinuation of her reasonable accommodations, which caused an exacerbation of her conditions and negatively impacted the control of her diabetes.

The attorney's difficulties began when she learned she was no longer eligible to participate in the agency's telework program due to her performance deficiencies. When the attorney said that she was allowed to telework as a reasonable accommodation, the agency responded that there was no formal agreement to telework as a reasonable accommodation.

Later, when the attorney informed her newly assigned supervisor that she had an informal accommodation of a later start time, the agency told the attorney to submit medical evidence support the need for a late start time but approved the attorney to use leave on the two days a week she formerly teleworked.

After the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs informed the attorney of deficiencies with her workers' compensation claim, the attorney alleged:

+ The agency made an improper unilateral decision to terminate her reasonable accommodations.

+ Management imposed an arbitrary deadline to submit medical evidence in support of reasonable accommodations and failed to explain how delaying termination of her telework would adversely affect the agency.

+ The agency assigned her more cases and projects with "essentially immediate" completion deadlines.

+ Cases were taken away from her improperly for the stated reason of poor performance.

+ She received "more than her fair share" of advice-related assignments that took time away from working on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Merit Systems Protection Board cases.

+ The agency "lied" about its intention to reinstate her reasonable accommodations regarding telework and a late starting time.

+ She experienced a "substantial increase" in the number of cases assigned to her and in the complexity of those cases, accompanied by a decrease in assistance from support staff.

+ She was repeatedly denied the ability to use the paralegal with the most advanced skills in the office, but another attorney was allowed to us this paralegal's services regularly.

+ The agency retaliated against her for filing EEOC complaints by improperly placing her on an "unwarranted" improvement plan.

Ultimately, OWCP denied the attorney's claim, and she appealed to the Employee's Compensation Appeals Board, challenging OWCP's denial.

Rule of Law

When a claimant makes a request for reconsideration, OWCP must undertake a limited review to determine whether it demonstrates clear evidence of error. To demonstrate clear evidence of error, a claimant must submit evidence relevant to the issue OWCP decide, and the evidence must be positive, precise, and explicit and manifest on its face that OWCP committed an error.

What ECAB Said

According to ECAB, OWCP properly denied the attorney's request for reconsideration because it failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error.

ECAB noted that none of the evidence that the attorney presented established a compensable employment factor. Instead, what the attorney submitted related to her stressors and symptoms and a document showing that the agency agreed to delay her start time at work by two hours and to work at home for two or three days per week.

"The Board has reviewed these documents and finds that they do not establish a compensable employment factor or otherwise demonstrate clear evidence of error," ECAB wrote.

Conclusion: ECAB found that OWCP properly denied the attorney's request for reconsideration.

Takeaway

Under federal workers' compensation law, clear evidence of error is intended to represent a difficult standard. It is not enough to show that evidence could be construed so as to produce a contrary conclusion. Instead, the evidence must raise a substantial question as to the correctness of OWCP’s decision.

Share This Article: