United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

Detroit, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0694

Issued: October 11, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 18, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 5, 2023 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.2

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2 The Board notes that following the April 5, 2023 decision, appellant submitted additional evidence to 

OWCP. However, the Board’s Rules of Procedure 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.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On December 1, 2022 appellant, then a 40-year-old customs and border protection officer, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral exertional 

compartment syndrome with bilateral leg pain due to factors of his federal employment, 

specifically training for the Customs and Border Patrol Officer Basic Training 2234 (CBP OBT 

2234). He noted that he first became aware of his condition on July 25, 2022, and first realized its 

relation to his federal employment on August 4, 2022. 

In a narrative dated December 1, 2022, Dr. Katherine Rashid, an osteopath specializing in 

orthopedic surgery, noted appellant’s complaints of right and left lower leg pain. On physical 

examination, she observed mild swelling in the distal anterior lateral aspect of the right lower leg 

and mild tenderness to palpation over the anterolateral lower leg on the left. Dr. Rashid advised 

that appellant could return to light-duty work. 

In an examination report dated June 20, 2022, Dr. John Goodner, a podiatrist, noted 

examination findings of mild edema present to the bilateral lower extremity and mild pain to the 

bilateral anterior lateral compartment. He diagnosed nontraumatic exertional compartment 

syndrome and anterior shin splints. 

In a development letter dated December 16, 2022, OWCP informed appellant of the 

deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence necessary to 

establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. In a separate letter of even 

date, OWCP also requested that the employing establishment provide additional information, 

including comments from a knowledgeable supervisor, regarding his occupational disease claim. 

It afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

In a December 29, 2022 disability note,Dr. Rashid indicated diagnoses of pain in left lower 

leg and exertional compartment syndrome of both lower extremities. She authorized appellant to 

return to work with restrictions. 

In a December 30, 2022 duty status report (Form CA-17), Dr. Rashid noted clinical 

findings of suspected bilateral exertional compartment syndrome. She recommended that 

appellant return to limited duty. 

In an office clinic note dated January 12, 2023, Dr. Brandon Kakos, a Board-certified 

internist, recounted appellant’s complaints of bilateral lower leg pain. He noted that symptoms 

began when appellant was training to be a border patrol agent in April 2022. Dr. Kakos indicated 

that appellant was unable to tolerate the daily training due to bilateral shin pain and was unable to 

graduate because he could not pass the running requirement. On physical examination, he 

observed no tenderness to palpation over the anterior tibia, tibialis anterior, and peroneous longus 

muscles. Dr. Kakos diagnosed nontraumatic compartment syndrome of unspecified lower 
3

extremity, cramp and spasm, and lower leg strain. He noted that appellant was working limited 

duty. 

In office clinic notes dated February 7 through March 13, 2023, Dr. Kakos indicated that 

appellant was evaluated for follow up of bilateral calf pain. Appellant noted that he tried to 

increase his running activity but has found it to be difficult. Dr. Kakos provided examination 

findings and diagnosed strain of lower leg muscle, nontraumatic compartment syndrome of the 

unspecified lower extremity, cramp and spasm, and right leg pain.

By decision dated April 5, 2023, OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim, 

finding that he had not established the implicated factors of his federal employment. 

Consequently, it found that he had not met the requirements to establish an injury as defined by 

FECA. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including that the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was timely filed within the applicable time 

limitation of FECA,4that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, and that 

any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.5 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.6

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors 

alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; 

(2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which 

compensation is claimed; and (3) rationalized medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.7 

3

Supra note 1.

4 D.D., Docket No. 19-1715 (issued December 3, 2020); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 

59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

5 Y.G., Docket No. 20-0688 (issued November 13, 2020); J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); 

R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 ECAB 312 (1988).

6 C.H., Docket No. 19-1781 (issued November 13, 2020); K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); 

L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 

7 T.M., Docket No. 20-0712 (issued November 10, 2020); S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 

59 ECAB 382 (2008).
4

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged. 

In his Form CA-2, appellant alleged that he developed bilateral exertional compartment 

syndrome with bilateral leg pain due to factors of his federal employment. He specifically reported 

training for the CBP OBT2234. OWCP, in its December 16, 2022 development letter, informed 

appellant of the deficiencies of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical 

evidence necessary to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP 

afforded appellant 30 days to submit the necessary evidence. Appellant, however, did not respond 

to OWCP’s development letter or otherwise provide a detailed narrative statement describing the 

employment factors, which he believed contributed to his condition. 8 As noted, he bears the 

burden of submitting a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of a disease or condition. 9

As the evidence of record is insufficient to establish the alleged employment factors, the 

Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof.

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 his burden of proof to establish an injury in the 

performance of duty, as alleged. 

8 T.G., Docket No. 22-0093 (issued February 7, 2023); J.H., Docket No. 22-0062 (issued April 21, 2022). 

9 T.W., Docket No. 20-0767 (issued January 13, 2021); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 5, 2023 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 11, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board