Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

The Board noted that Cannon was unlike Cutler because the employee was not aspiring to change
his working conditions or status. He was immediately concerned about a direct, unanticipated and
erroneous action by the employing establishment affecting the conditions of his employment. His
emotional reaction could not be considered self-generated because the action by the employing
establishment affected the conditions of his employment; neither could it be considered
self-generated because the action by the employing establishment was directed to a particular
employee on an official basis, and later found to be erroneous. Therefore, his cardiac arrest and
subsequent death constituted an injury within the meaning of the Act.
Where the evidence shows error or abuse by the employing establishment, an employee's reaction
cannot be considered self-generated and will come within the coverage of the Act. However, a
reversal or modification of a disciplinary or other action taken against an employee does not
necessarily establish that the employing agency's actions were in error or abusive. In Nicholas D.
Buckley, Docket No. 91-673, issued October 24, 1991 the Board stated:
appellant has submitted medical evidence which attributed the aggravation of his
preexisting emotional condition to his termination from the letter carrier position he held at
the employing establishment following 60 days of his probationary period. The evidence
does not establish, however, that appellant's disability arose within the performance of
duty. The record establishes that appellant's separation from the postal service resulted
from two letters of warning he received, for failure to obey a direct order and for missing a
collection box, and a preventable motor-vehicle accident. Following his separation,
appellant filed grievances which resulted in one letter of warning being removed from
appellant's record, in order that he could apply for a mailhandler position, and the second
letter of warning being reduced to an official discussion, a form of discipline at the
employing agency. In taking these administrative actions, appellant has not introduced any
evidence which would demonstrate that the employing establishment erred or acted
abusively in these matters. There is no evidence of record in this case that the employing
establishment did not act reasonably in the administration of these personnel matters. The
fact that one disciplinary letter of warning was removed and the second letter of warning
was reduced to a discussion does not establish that the disciplinary actions brought against
appellant were in error.
g. Personnel Actions. Personnel actions may be canceled or modified through various
procedures such as arbitration, grievance, etc., or disputes may be settled without prejudice to the
position of any party. Cancellation or modification of personnel actions and settlements of disputes
do not, of themselves, establish that the actions were erroneous or unreasonable and therefore
constitute factors of the employment. Affirming the Office's decision in William Cook, Docket No.
90-1343, issued November 30, 1990, the Board stated:
appellant attributes his emotional condition to certain events and circumstances that
occurred while he was a postal employee. These events and circumstances, although
contemporaneous or coincident with appellant's employment, do not constitute factors of
employment giving rise to coverage under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.
Appellant primarily complains that he has been the subject of long-standing harassment and
discrimination from superiors and fellow employees, and he notes that he has filed
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 201