QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
Skip to Messages


Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            11618-11633 of 11633  11602-11617 >>
KIMMIEKPerson was signed in when posted
08:08 PM ET (US)
OJIELIGIBLE??? Hi -- you will get the best advise by first going into the injured employees forum there are 2 of them. Either is fine-- So go back to postalreporter.com into their forum site- then click for injured... This is for legal info here and you might have an EEO charge too. Need more info in that direction thanks and good luck with your health. Ask the Question to ED he is a retired Claims Examiner for OWCP and will get you where you need to go.
Edited 06-29-2015 08:09 PM
08:02 PM ET (US)
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to seek info on but any assistance is greatly appreciated. A few months back I was wasn't feeling well on the clock and it got worse quickly. I approached my supervisor who told me I really looked bad an to hang on why he tried to get someone to replace the rest of my shift. After a few minutes I told him I couldn't breath an had to go to the Doctor. He got disgruntled and said "Go home then if your sick or see a damn doctor" I left an Imediately drove to the Hospital where I was admitted when walking thru the door for a heart attack. I have since had a meeting with my PM an tried to go back to work on a doctor prescribed limited duty bases an paperwork was denied and I was given postal medical eval form for Doc to fill out an return. My PM also made reference to not a OJI situation 3 or 4 times to me an my union rep. My question is "Does this Qualify as a OJI situation?" I'd like to try an recover almost 600hrs of sick an AL time used an I am still not back to work yet. Thank you for any feed back on this.
Fe-MailmanPerson was signed in when posted
12:16 PM ET (US)
After being on work comp for 1 year. My USPS human resource case worker has been harassing and bullying me. During my injury, and still after almost 2 years. This is the second grievance I have filed against her, I believe she is discriminating against my disability, and in retaliation, for filing a grievance and being on Owcp. I went back to duty 8/13. In May 15 my PM informed me I am still in "protected salary" status. Which means, since my injury, 7/12-8/13 my salary was frozen. Upon my back to dtry status, my salary was suppose to be un frozen. When I contacted my HR OWCP case worker she lied to me and said she UN froze my pay in 8/13. Also lied to me and said she never received an email about this from my PM which I have a copy. So my pay was UN frozen with in a week for 1 pay period. The next pay period it went back into frozen status. When I asked my HR worker, how I can get my back pay for the last 23 months. More then a $15,000 per year difference She said she had no clue and can not help me. USPS HR head quarters can not help me or explain why this happened, again, or how to fix it or get back pay. USPS accounting is no help either. Can I file a discrimination complaint on her/USPS for my back pay and compensation. This caused me nothing but financial/emotional hardships for the past 3 years. I am even afraid to get hurt at work again and have to file a claim, I done think I even would considering how degrading this has all been for me. Almost lost my house, severe depression and axiety , bankruptcy, poor credit, no being able to provide for my family, living pay check to pay check. Ect.... any advice would be greatly appreciated.
05:28 PM ET (US)
gary, was any letters sent out
11:31 AM ET (US)
Pittman Class Action UPDATE on website: http://www.pittmanclass.com/websys94.pl
Deleted by author 06-19-2015 11:08 AM
shushuandjujuPerson was signed in when posted
08:40 AM ET (US)
Hey Slingshot,
               How are you? Do you mean post # 11618? If so, I did see that. That's why I asked what I did. If you mean another post, I'm sorry, that I did not see.
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01:35 AM ET (US)
You bet KIM. Send me an email.
KIMMIEKPerson was signed in when posted
12:42 AM ET (US)
THX Slingshot This is great and leads me in the right direction APPRECIATED
Deleted by author 06-15-2015 06:21 PM
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
05:59 PM ET (US)
Hey Shushuandjuju /m11619

Did you get my post?
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
05:58 PM ET (US)

Best to use the Lillian Cutler Rule. It set the precedent for ALL emotional conditions under OWCP. Also see all the cases WITHIN the Cutler Case...here it is.

It is the precedent for ALL emotional conditions:

09-0439 December 29, 2009
 09-0764P December 18, 2009
 08-2557 August 11, 2009

 To establish that a claimant sustained an emotional condition causally related to factors of employment, the claimant MUST submit: 1) factual evidence identifying and supporting employment factors or incidents alleged to have caused, contributed or adversely affected the condition by his/her employment, 2) rationalized medical evidence establishing that the claimant has an emotional condition or psychiatric disorder, 3) rationalized medical opinion evidence establishing that the emotional condition is causally related to the identified compensable employment factors; and 4) sufficient evidence to establish that s/he actually experienced the employment incident at the time, place, and in the manner alleged.

 Rationalized medical evidence is evidence which relates a work incident or factors of employment to a claimant's condition, with stated reasons of a physician. The opinion must be one reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship of the diagnosed condition and the specific employment factors or employment injury. When the matter asserted is a compensable factor of employment and the evidence of record establishes the truth of the matter asserted, the Office must base its decision on the analysis of the medical evidence. Nurses or licensed social workers do not constitute competent medical evidence for the purpose of the Act.

 An administrative or personnel matter Will Be considered to be an employment factor where the evidence discloses error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment.

 The Board has held that emotional reactions to situations in which an employee is trying to meet his or her position requirements are compensable. Where a claimed disability results from an employee's emotional reaction to his/her regular or specially assigned duties, altered job duties or to an imposed employment requirement, the disability comes within the coverage of the Act.

 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 the Act.

 The Board has held that frustration with the policies and procedures of the employing establishment are administrative matters and are NOT compensable factors of employment.

 Disability is NOT covered where it results from an employee's fear of a reduction-in-force, frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a particular position, or to secure a promotion. Disabling conditions resulting from an employee's feeling of job insecurity or the desire for a different job do not constitute a personal injury sustained while in the performance of duty within the meaning of the Act.

 The Board has held that actions of the employing establishment which the employee characterizes as harassment or retaliation may constitute factors of employment giving rise to coverage under the Act. Mere perceptions of harassment and retaliation are not compensable under the Act. A claimant must establish a factual basis for the claim by supporting the allegations of harassment with probative and reliable evidence.

 For harassment to give rise to compensable disability, there must be some evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur. With regard to emotional claims arising under the Act, the term discrimination or harassment as applied by the Board is not the equivalent of that as defined or implemented by other agencies, such as the EEOC. Under the Act, the term "harassment" is synonymous, as generally defined, with a persistent disturbance, torment or persecution, i.e., mistreatment by co-employees or workers.

 As a rule, allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an emotional condition claim. The claimant must substantiate allegations with probative and reliable evidence which establishes that the acts alleged or implicated by the employee did, in fact, occur.

 Where an emotional condition is the only work-related condition known to be present, referrals should be made to clinical psychologists as long as the file contains no indication that medication for a psychological condition is being used. This action should be taken even if the attending physician is a psychiatrist, but not where psychogenic overlay is felt to be present, as these cases presuppose a connection between the psychological condition and its physical manifestation which can best be addressed by a psychiatrist.
KIMMIEKPerson was signed in when posted
05:11 PM ET (US)
Hi Slingshot-

Have you come across ECAB cases where it was a hostile working environment that caused depression and anxiety and the injured won the case- I am having problems locating these cases... I am looking on the OWCP database. THX
Deleted by author 06-11-2015 05:58 PM
shushuandjujuPerson was signed in when posted
03:43 PM ET (US)
Hey Slingshot,
              I just read the link you posted. Do you have an idea as to when those ongoing investigations will be posted? Or maybe do you have the email address of Inspector General Michael Horowitz so I can inquire of him directly if you don't know? Another thing I noticed in the article is where it said, "While Justice has one of the smaller inspector general staffs — the Defense Department and U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (capitalization added by me since this forum deals with USPS) are huge by comparison — members of Congress and government oversight groups hope Horowitz will set an important precedent for the other 72 watchdogs, who as a rule don’t make their investigations public except when lawmakers or reporters request them under the Freedom of Information Act. Horowitz is chairman of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, a watchdog over the watchdogs that also sets policy. Does the Office of Inspector General have jurisdiction over USPS to post ongoing investigations regarding high-ranking USPS officials? By the way, I'm referring to OIG affiliated with the DOJ, unless OIG affiliated with DOJ is the same OIG affiliated with USPS. I ask because the link https://www.uspsoig.gov/ and the link http://www.justice.gov/ seem to denote 2 different OIG organizations.

Edited 06-11-2015 04:14 PM
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01:34 PM ET (US)
Justice watchdog will no longer keep employee wrongdoing secret. Will others follow?

​"​When high-level federal employees break the rules, their misconduct is often swept from public view so agencies can avoid embarrassment. Some employees are then allowed to quietly retire rather than have to face the consequences of their actions. For the public, the secrecy smacks of poor accountability in government.
 At the Department of Justice last week, Inspector General Michael Horowitz took a step toward removing the cloak of secrecy around employee misconduct with a new policy: His office will post summaries of investigations on its Web site.​
​ ​ Read More---​

^     All messages            11618-11633 of 11633  11602-11617 >>