```

[House Report 106-1024]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 594

106th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 106-1024

 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS 
                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                               __________

                              NINTH REPORT

                                 by the

                     COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                                     

  Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
                      http://www.house.gov/reform

December 4, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
89-006                     WASHINGTON : 2000

                     COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
THOMAS M. DAVIS III, Virginia        CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  Columbia
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DOUG OSE, California                             ------
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho              (Independent)
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

                      Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                 Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
           David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                     Robert A. Briggs, Chief Clerk
                 Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director

   Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology

                   STEPHEN HORN, California, Chairman
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JIM TURNER, Texas
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
DOUG OSE, California                 PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

                               Ex Officio

DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
          J. Russell George, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
   Bonnie Heald, Director of Communications/Professional Staff Member
               Heather Bailey, Professional Staff Member
                         Elizabeth Seong, Clerk
                    Trey Henderson, Minority Counsel

                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                                  House of Representatives,
                                  Washington, DC, December 4, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Speaker: By direction of the Committee on 
Government Reform, I submit herewith the committee's ninth 
report to the 106th Congress. The committee's report is based 
on a study conducted by its Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology.
                                                Dan Burton,
                                                          Chairman.

                                     
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Summary of oversight findings and recommendations................     1
Introduction.....................................................     1
Jurisdiction.....................................................     1
  I. Findings.........................................................2
 II. Summary of investigation.........................................2
III. Background.......................................................2
 IV. Areas of concern.................................................3
  V. Recommendations..................................................3
 VI. Subcommittee investigation.......................................3
        A. Fairness of the non-adversarial system to claimants...     4
        B. Delays in the claims adjudication process.............     7
        C. Accountability of the Office of Workers' Compensation 
            Programs.............................................     7
        D. Poor customer service at the OWCP.....................     8
VII. Final recommendations...........................................11
Appendix.........................................................    13

                                 VIEWS

Additional views of Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Hon. Jim Turner, Hon. 
  Tom Lantos, Hon. Major R. Owens, Hon. Edolphus Towns, Hon. 
  Carolyn B. Maloney, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Hon. Chaka 
  Fattah, Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich, Hon. 
  Rod R. Blagojevich, Hon. Danny K. Davis, Hon. John F. Tierney, 
  Hon. Harold E. Ford, Jr., and Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky........    15

                                                 Union Calendar No. 594
106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                    106-1024

======================================================================

 
 MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS 
                        U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                                _______
                                

December 4, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Burton, from the Committee on Government Reform 
                        submitted the following

                              NINTH REPORT

    On October 19, 2000, the Committee on Government Reform 
approved and adopted a report entitled, ``Management Practices 
at the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs U.S. Department 
of Labor.'' The chairman was directed to transmit a copy to the 
Speaker of the House.

           Summary of Oversight Findings and Recommendations

                              Introduction

                              Jurisdiction

    The Committee on Government Reform (``committee'') has 
primary legislative and oversight jurisdiction with respect to 
``Government management generally,'' as well as ``overall 
economy, efficiency, and management of Government operations 
and activities.'' \1\ The committee also has the 
responsibility:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Clause 1(h) (4) and (6) Rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, 106th Cong.

        [T]o determine whether laws and programs addressing 
        subjects within the jurisdiction of [the] committee are 
        being implemented and carried out in accordance with 
        the intent of Congress [through the] review and study 
        on a continuing basis the application, administration, 
        execution, and effectiveness of laws and programs 
        addressing subjects within its jurisdiction. [The 
        committee shall review and study] any conditions or 
        circumstances that may indicate the necessity or 
        desirability of enacting new or additional legislation 
        addressing subjects within its jurisdiction.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id., Clause 2(b)(1) (A) and (C).

    Pursuant to this authority, the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology (``subcommittee'') 
convened various oversight hearings to explore: Management 
Practices at the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. 
Department of Labor.

                              I. Findings

    The committee found the following areas to be of primary 
concern within the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs:
     Those responsible for the administration of the 
Federal Employees' Compensation Act at the Office of Workers' 
Compensations Programs within the Department of Labor are not 
providing adequate information or services to claimants who 
file appeals;
     Management practices of the Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs at the Department of Labor are not 
focused on customer service;
     Federal agencies are not providing adequate 
assistance to their injured Federal workers; and
     Actions are needed to improve management practices 
and customer service in the Office of Workers' Compensations 
Programs at the Division of Federal Employees' Compensation, 
Department of Labor and at employing Federal agencies.

                      II. Summary of Investigation

    Since 1998, the Subcommittee on Government Management, 
Information, and Technology has held three investigative 
hearings and interviewed hundreds of people on the Government's 
process of compensating Federal employees who are injured while 
fulfilling their work-related duties.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology: ``Oversight of the Management Practices at the Office of 
Workers' Compensation Programs,'' 105th Cong., 2d sess., Serial No. 
105-200 (July 6, 1998); ``Oversight of Customer Service at the Office 
of Workers' Compensation Programs,'' 106th Cong., 1st sess., Serial No. 
106-87 (May 18, 1999); ``Federal Workers' Compensation Program: Are 
Injured Federal Workers Being Treated Fairly?,'' 106th Cong., 2d sess. 
(Sept. 21, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 
[OWCP] has undergone some changes to enhance customer service, 
injured workers, their union representatives, attorneys and 
physicians say the problems remain largely unchanged.

                            III. Background

    The OWCP is responsible for adjudicating and administering 
claims of work-related injuries and illnesses as authorized by 
the Federal Employees' Compensation Act [FECA].\4\ The FECA 
program covers nearly 3 million active duty civilian Federal 
employees, providing benefits to those it determines sustain an 
injury or illness in the performance of their duties. During 
fiscal year 1999, FECA's costs totaled about $1.9 billion in 
compensation, medical, and death benefits. Federal employees 
filed about 167,000 injury notices last year. And at the end of 
fiscal year 1999, the OWCP was administering about 243,000 
ongoing injury cases for partial or total disability, including 
those from previous years. OWCP officials say they receive an 
estimated 2.6 million phone calls and 5.5 million pieces of 
mail each year from claimants, medical providers, agencies and 
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8101, et seq., as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disputes under the FECA are resolved through informal 
conferences or formal reconsideration at the district office 
level, through administrative hearings, or review by the 
independent Employees' Compensation Appeals Board whose 
decision is final.

                          IV. Areas of Concern

    A. Fairness of the non-adversarial system to claimants;
    B. Delays in the claim adjudication process;
    C. Accountability of the Office of Workers' Compensation 
Programs;
    D. Poor Customer Service at the Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs.

                           V. Recommendations

    A. Provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
must be enforced, specifically those provisions dealing with 
employers who interfere with an employee's legitimate claim for 
compensation due to a work-related injury or illness.
    B. Provisions in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
must be clarified to require a third opinion by a qualified 
physician when an employee's attending physician and an OWCP 
physician disagree on the diagnosis or prognosis of a work-
related injury or disease.
    C. The Division of Federal Employees' Compensation within 
the Department of Labor should make every effort to provide 
telephone access to FECA claimants, their representatives and 
medical providers. This effort should include a centralized 
communications center.
    D. While timeframes must be set for claim resolutions, they 
must not be at the expense of a quality, well-thought-out 
decision.
    E. Congress should consider establishing an independent 
board, such as the board overseeing ongoing reforms at the 
Internal Revenue Service, to review, make recommendations, and 
oversee reforms at the Office of Workers' Compensation 
Programs. This board should also consider and recommend to 
Congress whether appeals by Federal workers under the Office of 
Workers' Compensation Programs should be extended to include 
the Federal court system.

                     VI. Subcommittee Investigation

    Over the last 3 years, the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information, and Technology and numerous 
congressional offices have received hundreds of complaints 
about the OWCP and the manner in which it handles the Federal 
Workers' Compensation Programs.
    In addition to receiving these complaints, many of which 
were substantiated by documentation, the subcommittee has 
conducted oversight, including three hearings on the subject 
under the chairmanship of Representative Stephen Horn (R-CA). 
Based on this oversight, the subcommittee found the following:

         A. Fairness of the non-adversarial system to claimants

    The subcommittee held its first hearing on the ``Oversight 
of the Management Practices at the Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs'' on July 6, 1998 in Long Beach, CA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ ``Oversight of the Management Practices at the Office of 
Workers' Compensation Programs,'' 105th Cong., 2d sess. (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During that hearing, Mr. Joseph Perez who, at the time, was 
a hearing representative for the OWCP testified that the 
original intent of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act was 
to create a non-adversarial, or non-litigious, system that 
would provide employers with a predictable future liability 
that they could incorporate into their overhead. The act was 
also intended to provide Federal employees who are injured 
during the course of their employment with swift, sure benefit 
recovery without the necessity of litigation.
    Mr. Perez went on to state: ``As long as both parties 
receive the results of that covenant, they are satisfied. 
However, I believe that justice is not being done to Federal 
employees. And the testament to that fact is the enormous 
number of complaints which have arisen regarding this system.''
    Despite materials presented by the OWCP that indicate the 
program is approving most cases and making timely decisions, 
Mr. Perez said: ``I suggest that the facts indicate that these 
statements are not true. In fact, benefits are not swiftly 
provided . . . I maintain that the proceedings are adversarial 
in nature.''
    Mr. Perez said that the number of hearing requests had 
risen dramatically over the previous 9 years because of the 
poor quality of decisions by OWCP claims examiners, who 
generally deny claims. Among the increased number of case 
hearings, 45 percent were remanded, or ordered to be reviewed 
by a second examiner or hearing officer, Mr. Perez stated. 
Among those cases that reached the Employees Compensation 
Appeals Board [ECAB]--the system's final appeals board--41 
percent were sent back to the OWCP for review, Mr. Perez 
stated. However, later testimony by ECAB Chairman Michael J. 
Walsh on September 21, 2000, stated that the percentage of the 
ECAB's remanded cases was currently 25 percent.
    Mr. Perez indicated during his testimony that there were 
several factors involved in the claim denials, including the 
Division of Federal Employees Compensation's efforts to lower 
costs to Federal departments and agencies by reducing the 
number of lost production days due to on-the-job injuries.
    Mr. Perez stated:

        The Division of Federal Employees Compensation has set 
        yearly goals for reducing the number of lost production 
        days between now [1998] and fiscal year 2002. . . . 
        [T]hat is a fine goal, and I believe that injured 
        employees should be brought back to work as soon as 
        medically suitable. But when the No. 1 goal for the 
        agency is to reduce the number of lost production days, 
        I am sure you can see that this is susceptible to abuse 
        and quotas . . . [S]ince the introduction of Quality 
        Case Management Procedures and early nurse 
        interventions, as I mentioned earlier, there has been a 
        22 percent increase in hearing requests. There seems to 
        be a correlation between these techniques for getting 
        people back to work and their dissatisfaction with the 
        decisions. . . . [T]hese individuals have legitimate 
        claims, and when they reach an appellate level, their 
        case is being approved. . . . I maintain, Mr. Chairman, 
        that these aggressive procedures to reduce the number 
        of lost production days are forcing legitimately 
        disabled employees back to work in inappropriate 
        jobs.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Id. Testimony of Joseph Perez.

    Other witnesses have substantiated Mr. Perez's claims. 
During the July 6, 1998, hearing Mr. Sammy Lopez, a supply 
technician at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Long 
Beach, CA, testified that in 1994 he sustained a work-related 
injury to his left ankle, neck and head that left him with 
permanent pain.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id. Testimony of Sammy Lopez.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Lopez testified that:

        At every step of the process, I was met with resistance 
        from my employing agency and [the] Federal agency 
        responsible for safeguarding my FECA rights, the Office 
        of Workers' Compensation Programs.

        Three months after my injury, I was advised that the 
        employing agency, [VA's OWCP manager] Arline Rubin, 
        directed medical staff personnel to alter the 
        physician's orders that had placed me off work, and 
        instead provide light duty status. This caused 
        unnecessary aggravation and stress and interfered with 
        my relationship with my supervisor at work and my 
        physician.

    Overall, Mr. Lopez said, ``Her [Arline Rubin's] zealous 
approach as a VA OWCP manager was never in the interest of the 
injured employee. She did everything in her power to interfere 
with my ability to convalesce, obtain compensation, and obtain 
the appropriate medical surgery.''
    Mr. Lopez ultimately received the necessary surgery on July 
30, 1996, 26 months after the date of injury. He later returned 
to the VA hospital as a union representative.
    Witnesses at each of the subcommittee's three hearings \8\ 
also said they believed that the physicians who rendered the 
second professional opinions in their cases were biased toward 
denying their claims. Few, if any, had been seen by an 
arbitrating third physician, which under most programs would be 
required when there are conflicting medical opinions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ In addition to the July 6, 1998 hearing, the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology held hearings on May 
18, 1999, and Sept. 21, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, Mr. Perez stated that when enacted in 1916, 
the Federal Employees' Compensation Act read as follows:

        [T]hat in case of any disagreement between the 
        physician making an examination on the part of the 
        United States and the employee's physician the 
        commission shall appoint a third physician, duly 
        qualified, who shall make an examination.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 39 Stat. 747 Sec. 22 (codified at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 771).

    Mr. Perez maintains that the language of the original law 
was not substantively altered by the 1996 changes in the 
act.\10\ Nevertheless, Mr. Perez said, ``despite this clear 
statutory mandate, the OWCP Procedural Manual contains the 
following instructions'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8123(a).

        [t]he findings or opinions of [the second opinion 
        physician] will often differ from those of the 
        claimant's attending physician. If of equal weight, the 
        differing opinions would constitute a conflict 
        requiring referral to a third physician. This is a 
        time-consuming process which is not always necessary. 
        Frequently a decision can be reached by weighing the 
        medical evidence of record without referral to a 
        referee specialist.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ FECA Procedural Manual, (chs. 2-810.9h) Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.

    Another problem, according to Mr. Perez's prepared 
statement on July 6, 1998, and confirmed by Attorney James 
Linehan at the subcommittee's hearing on May 18, 1999,\12\ is 
that in most courts of law, the ``attending physician rule'' 
prevails, but not at the OWCP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ``Oversight of Customer Service at the Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs,'' 106th Cong., 1st sess., Serial No. 106-87 (May 
18, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Linehan stated:

        Under most circumstances in courts of law or otherwise, 
        the attending physician rule prevails. This rule is 
        quite simple. In a contest between the injured 
        claimant's qualified attending medical physician and an 
        agency's non-attending consultative examiner regarding 
        medical treatment, the qualified medical 
        recommendations and reports of the attending physician 
        prevail and take precedence over the paid consultant. 
        The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals and the U.S. Social 
        Security Administration recognize that the ``attending 
        physician rule'' was developed because such an opinion 
        ``reflects an expert judgment based on a continuing 
        observation of the patient's condition over a prolonged 
        period of time.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Foster v. Heckler, 780 F.2d 1125, 1130 (4th Cir. 1986) 
(quoting Mitchell v. Schweiker, 699 F. 2d 185, 187 (4th Cir. 1983)).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    However, Mr. Linehan said,

        [t]he exact opposite holds true in OWCP claims. 5 
        U.S.C. Sec. 8123 states that when there is a conflict 
        in medical evidence of equal weight, the opinion of the 
        hired medical consultant of the OWCP prevails over that 
        of the claimant's attending physician. The detailed 
        medical treatment reports of a Federal employee's 
        attending physician are considered less qualified than 
        the medical report of a non-examining physician 
        retained and paid by OWCP. This occurs despite the fact 
        that the employee's attending physician's expert 
        judgment reflects the continuing observation of the 
        patient's condition over a prolonged period of time. 
        With total unilateral control by the OWCP over the 
        medical treatment of the Federal employee, it is in the 
        best interest of OWCP not to recognize the attending 
        physician rule. The OWCP, with unilateral control over 
        its choice of the prevailing medical report needs only 
        to ``shop around'' for a paid consultant to state any 
        medical diagnosis the OWCP so desires. With such 
        unilateral control over the claimant's own attending 
        physician, the OWCP has no incentive to act in the best 
        interest of the Federal employee.

    However, in a July 26, 1999 letter responding to followup 
questions from the subcommittee's ranking member, Jim Turner 
(D-TX), the OWCP Deputy Director, Shelby Hallmark, stated:

        The policy followed by OWCP and the ECAB in weighing 
        the opinion of a treating physician is consistent with 
        the approach taken by administrators of other benefit 
        programs such as the Social Security Administration. 
        The ``attending physician rule'' is nothing more than a 
        jurisprudential principle regarding the weight to be 
        given to particular medical evidence. While the rule 
        is, in fact, based in part upon the treating 
        physician's ``continuing observation of the patient's 
        condition over a prolonged period of time,'' the SSA, 
        by regulation, gives controlling weight to the opinion 
        of a treating physician only if it is ``well-supported 
        by medically acceptable clinical and substantial 
        evidence in (the) record.''

              B. Delays in the claims adjudication process

    Nearly all witnesses stated that they had to wait months or 
years for the adjudication of their claims. Claimants are given 
30 days to request a hearing if they choose to refute the 
OWCP's disposition of their case. However, witnesses testified 
that it can take as long as 2 years before the hearing occurs. 
And if a claim is remanded (returned to OWCP for further 
examination), that review process can take another 23 months. 
If claimants seek a final appeal through the Employees 
Compensation Appeals Board [ECAB], which is independent of the 
OWCP but reports to the Secretary of Labor, the process can 
take an additional 2 years.
    At the subcommittee's third hearing on September 21, 
2000,\14\ Michael J. Walsh, of the Employees' Compensation 
Appeals Board [ECAB] stated that about 25 percent of the cases 
that are appealed to the ECAB are reversed, or sent back to 
OWCP for review, because of a factual or legal error, or 
because the case needs further development. ``Our role is to 
review whether they've correctly looked at the facts and 
correctly looked at the law. If we disagree on either of those 
issues . . . that would be a basis for sending it back,'' Mr. 
Walsh said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``Federal Workers' Compensation Program: Are Injured Federal 
Workers Being Treated Fairly?,'' 106th Cong., 2d sess. (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   C. Accountability of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

    Mr. Linehan stated that the one overriding concern common 
to all areas of the OWCP claims handling process, is the OWCP's 
lack of accountability to any overseer. Mr. Linehan stated that 
the OWCP is essentially a self-governing, self-regulating 
Federal agency that answers to no court of law, which has 
resulted in a Federal agency that is not required to answer or 
account for its actions (or lack of action).
    According to Mr. Linehan, there is no incentive, legally or 
economically, for the OWCP to act in the ``best interest'' of 
the Federal employee. In reality, quite the opposite occurs. It 
is in the ``best interest'' of the OWCP and the employing 
Federal agency to delay, stall or deny claims because such non-
action saves the OWCP from claims payments.
    In effect, Mr. Linehan stated, this lack of accountability 
by the OWCP has directly led to the rapidly growing refusal of 
qualified medical practitioners across the United States to 
medically treat injured or diseased Federal civilian employees. 
The OWCP mandates that it must pre-approve and authorize 
medical treatment, however, the OWCP is under no timeline 
requiring it to issue such approval and authorization for 
medical treatment. The injured Federal worker who needs 
immediate medical treatment must first find a physician who 
will treat him or her. But physicians are highly reluctant to 
accept the cases because they are aware that they may not be 
paid for months, years, or at all by the OWCP.
    In addition, Mr. Linehan stated that there are less than a 
handful of practicing attorneys across the United States who 
will represent Federal civilian employees in their workers' 
compensation claims because there is no court review. ``No 
review means no payment,'' he said.
    Without accountability, Mr. Linehan stated, the OWCP is 
free to act in any manner it desires toward an injured Federal 
civilian employee. The OWCP is free to refuse to respond to 
claimants' telephone calls; free to refuse to acknowledge 
receipt of correspondence or medical records from claimants or 
their physicians; and is free to delay or wrongfully deny due 
compensation benefits to the claimant.

                  D. Poor customer service at the OWCP

    One of the leading complaints among all of the claimants, 
union representatives, physicians and attorneys, including 
those who have testified before the subcommittee, was their 
inability to contact a representative at the OWCP to obtain 
information regarding the status of their claim or obtaining 
authorization for medical treatment.
    Similar complaints have been stated in hundreds of letters 
received by the subcommittee as well as in hearing testimony. 
At the subcommittee's hearing on May 18, 1999, for example, Ms. 
Beth Balen, administrator of the Anchorage Fracture and 
Orthopedic Clinic in Anchorage, AK, testified:

        When calling the USDL [United States Department of 
        Labor], it is not possible to call and speak to a 
        person. The caller punches numbers and leaves a 
        message. The message process that must be followed to 
        get information or leave a message for a call back is 
        very long, and there is no way to bypass the message 
        (such as pushing ``0'' for an operator) and reach a 
        person. Recent experience has shown an improvement in 
        the timeliness of call-backs, but the process is 
        frustrating, particularly when a doctor is waiting for 
        information, or a patient is in the office, waiting for 
        help.

    Also at the May 18, 1999, subcommittee hearing, Mr. John 
Riordan, first vice president of the American Federation of 
Government Employees [AFL-CIO], which represents approximately 
25,000 Social Security Administration employees, gave the 
following testimony regarding the OWCP's telephone policy in 
the New York district office:

        I encounter difficulties contacting agents because of 
        the voice mail system. You are no longer able to speak 
        with an agent. Instead, I have to leave voice-recorded 
        messages. When I receive no response, I have to write 
        to them even though I work in the same building where 
        they are located. They imposed a strict policy 
        restricting visitors to their offices a couple of years 
        ago.

    Despite efforts at the OWCP to upgrade its telephone 
systems over the last 5 years, an October 3, 2000, report by 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] confirmed that it is 
extremely difficult to reach employees at most of the OWCP's 
district offices by telephone.\15\ Between January and 
September 2000, the GAO placed 2,400 telephone calls to OWCP's 
12 district offices, attempting to obtain the same type of 
information an injured Federal worker might request. To compare 
the OWCP's goals and practices for telephone communication with 
those of model organizations, the GAO also surveyed three 
agencies that have won awards for their telephone communication 
practices: the Social Security Administration, the Department 
of Veterans Affairs' Benefits Administration and the State of 
Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ U.S. General Accounting Office testimony, ``Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs: Goals and Monitoring Are Needed to Further 
Improve Customer Communications,'' GAO-01-72T, Oct. 3, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To evaluate these systems, the GAO used criteria suggested 
by the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, which 
was based on an extensive study of high-performance customer 
service organizations in the private sector and their best 
practices for providing telephone service.
    These criteria suggest, for example, the following 
telephone service goals:
     99 percent of callers can access the telephone 
system;
     98 percent of callers reach a customer service 
representative; and the time waiting on line be no more than 30 
seconds; and
     85 percent of callers' inquiries should be 
resolved during the first call.
    The GAO found that the Social Security Administration, 
Department of Veterans Affairs' Benefits Administration and 
Ohio's Bureau of Workers' Compensation varied in whether they 
established goals for these measures. All three had goals for 
telephone access, two had goals for the portion of callers 
reaching representatives and the time they must wait on-line, 
and one had a goal of resolving inquiries on the first call.
    The OWCP had set no goals that conform with the three NPR-
suggested goals. The OWCP did, however, have a goal of 
returning 90 percent of phone calls to those who left messages 
not related to medical authorizations. The OWCP also had a 
separate goal in fiscal year 1999 of returning 95 percent of 
the calls related to medical authorizations within 3 days.
    However, GAO surveyors found wide differences in their 
ability to access the telephone systems at the OWCP district 
offices, much less obtain information. These failed attempts--
which occurred because of busy signals, no answer after 1 
minute, or a message erroneously stating that the phone number 
was invalid--ranged from the lowest, zero percent of the calls 
at the Boston (MA) district office, to the highest rate of 
failed calls, 54 percent, at the Jacksonville (FL) district 
office. Surveyors made an average of 200 calls per office.
    The reasons given for these failures also varied. In 
Jacksonville, surveyors frequently experienced busy signals 
because district officials said that they believe it is better 
for a customer to receive a busy signal than to remain on hold 
for an extended period of time at the caller's expense. In San 
Francisco, surveyors were unable to access the phone system 
approximately 40 percent of the time; the District Director 
told the GAO that the problem was caused by a flaw in the phone 
system that had existed for years. She said that although 
customers hear the phone ringing, the system does not recognize 
that someone is calling. She said that she had spoken with 
officials from the phone company and communications officials 
at the Department of Labor, but the problem remained 
unresolved. The OWCP's Acting Director told the GAO that the 
San Francisco telephone problem had been resolved as of 
September 13, 2000, and that a July purchase of eight 
additional telephone lines would increase the system's 
accessibility.
    The GAO telephone survey also confirmed the difficulty in 
attempting to speak to an OWCP representative at most district 
offices. Surveyors found that the percentage of times they were 
unable to reach any district employee within 5 minutes varied 
from 13 percent of the time at the Cleveland office to 97 
percent of the time at the Jacksonville district office. OWCP 
employees could not be contacted in 86 percent of the calls to 
the Dallas district office, and in 80 percent of the calls to 
the New York district office. The most frequent reasons why GAO 
surveyors failed to reach an OWCP employee were that they were 
still receiving a busy signal or no answer after 15 rings; they 
were transferred to a voice mail box after selecting the option 
to speak to a representative; they were still on hold 5 minutes 
after selecting an option to speak to an employee; or they were 
disconnected after selecting an option to speak to an employee.
    Officials at five district offices visited by the GAO said 
they had too few employees to answer the phones, adjudicate 
claims and perform the other services they must provide. Some 
offices, such as Dallas, uses e-mail for medical 
authorizations, congressional contacts, and general inquiries. 
In addition, the national office and four district offices are 
taking steps to provide customers information on the Internet.
    The National Partnership for Reinventing Government 
estimates that organizations that answer a caller's question on 
the first call will spend less time and about half the 
resources as organizations that take multiple calls to answer 
inquires. According to the GAO, OWCP Acting Director Shelby 
Hallmark recognizes the benefits of answering the initial 
calls. He said that an ongoing program to make more claimant 
information available to district office computer terminals 
could help achieve that goal. But he also said that 
establishing such a goal would be more appropriate for an 
organization with a call center and a staff whose sole 
responsibility is answering telephone calls. Instead, Mr. 
Hallmark told the GAO that OWCP district offices, which have 
other responsibilities, receive the calls and many prefer to 
direct them to voice mail and respond at a later time.
    The GAO noted that the OWCP's budget request for fiscal 
year 2001 requested funding for a toll-free telephone number 
for medical authorizations, telephone system hardware upgrades, 
additional communications specialists, and expanded access to 
automated information for injured workers.
    The telephone system, however, was only part of the overall 
communications problem for a witness at the subcommittee's May 
18, 1999, hearing. OWCP claimant Thomas Mike Chamberlin, a 
former FBI special agent, was one of the few witnesses who 
successfully contacted an OWCP official by phone, but the 
result was equally unsatisfactory. In attempting to resolve 
conflicting information from OWCP representatives, Mr. 
Chamberlin faxed a question asking about his right to 
reconsideration, along with the appropriate legal citation, to 
the OWCP's Director and Assistant Director Sheila Williams.
    According to Mr. Chamberlin's testimony, he later called 
and spoke to Ms. Williams. The OWCP Assistant Director told Mr. 
Chamberlin that she would have to do some research before she 
could answer his question. Further, because of her travel 
schedule, it would take her a few weeks before she could call 
him back with the information. ``She never returned the call,'' 
Mr. Chamberlin said.
    During the subcommittee's September 21, 2000, hearing the 
OWCP Acting Inspector General, Patricia Dalton, acknowledged 
that the department has a communications problem, but 
attributed it to the clarity of communication rather than 
access to department employees. Ms. Dalton stated, ``I think 
there's a lot of confusion, we speak in Government jargon as 
opposed to plain English. . . . I think the department needs to 
do a better job of explaining where we are in a process, what's 
going on, what people can expect, what do they need to do.''

                       VII. Final Recommendations

    Based upon the records developed by the Subcommittee on 
Government Management, Information, and Technology during its 
oversight process, including correspondence with hundreds of 
injured Federal workers, the committee makes the following 
recommendations.
    A. Provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
should be enforced, specifically those provisions dealing with 
employers who interfere with an employee's legitimate claim for 
compensation due to a work-related injury or illness.
    B. Provisions in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
must be clarified to require a third opinion by a qualified 
physician when an employee's attending physician and an OWCP 
physician disagree on the diagnosis and prognosis of a work-
related injury or disease.
    C. The Division of Federal Employees' Compensation within 
the Department of Labor should make every effort to provide 
telephone access to FECA claimants, their representatives and 
medical providers. This effort should include a centralized 
communications center.
    D. While timeframes must be set for claim resolutions, they 
must not be at the expense of a quality, well-thought-out 
decision.
    E. Congress should consider establishing an independent 
board, such as the board overseeing ongoing reforms at the 
Internal Revenue Service, to review, recommend, and oversee 
reforms at the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. This 
board should also consider and recommend to Congress whether 
appeals by Federal workers under the Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs should be extended to include the Federal 
court system.

                                APPENDIX

                              ----------                              

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, of 
                   the Committee on Government Reform

Hearings on the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (1998 to 2000)

``Management Practices at the Office of Workers' Compensation 
        Programs,'' July 6, 1998, Long Beach, CA
Witnesses:
    Joseph Perez, hearing representative, Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs;
    William Usher, hearing representative, Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs;
    Sammy Lopez, supply technician, Veterans Administration;
    Howard Miyashiro, letter carrier, U.S. Postal Service;
    Anthony Burelli, marine electrician, Long Beach Naval 
Shipyard;
    Roger Euchler, letter carrier, U.S. Postal Service;
    Susan Yake, dietitian, U.S. Naval Hospital, Bremerton, WA;
    Rachael Santos, postal manager, U.S. Postal Service;
    Joseph Jackson, Mailhandlers' union compensation 
coordinator;
    Michael Kerr, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Director, Office 
of Workers' Compensation Programs, accompanied by Shelby 
Hallmark, Deputy Director, Office of Workers' Compensation 
Programs; and,
    Donna Onodera, Director, San Francisco Regional Office, 
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
``Oversight of Customer Service at the Office of Workers' Compensation 
        Programs,'' May 18, 1999, Washington, DC
Witnesses:
    Thomas Mike Chamberlin, former Special Agent, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation;
    Dianne McGuinness, former employee of the Social Security 
Administration;
    Matthew Fairbanks, Special Agent/Pilot, Drug Enforcement 
Agency;
    Beth Balen, administrator, Anchorage Fracture and 
Orthopedic Clinic;
    John Riordan, first vice-president, Council 220, American 
Federation of Government Employees;
    James R. Linehan, attorney, Edmond, OK;
    Tina Maggio, field representative, Office of Representative 
Michael F. Doyle;
    Patricia Dalton, Deputy Inspector General, Office of 
Inspector General, Department of Labor, accompanied by Amy 
Friedlander, Evaluations and Inspections, Office of Inspector 
General; and
    Shelby Hallmark, Deputy Director, Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, accompanied by 
Sharon Tyler, District Director, San Francisco Regional Office.
``Federal Workers' Compensation Program: Are Injured Federal Workers 
        Being Treated Fairly?,'' September 21, 2000, Washington, DC
Witnesses:
    Reginald Sydnor, former attorney, U.S. Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission;
    C.B. Weiser, attorney, Weiser Law Offices (Marshall, TX);
    Greg Fox, Office of Workers Compensation Programs 
representative, American Federation of Government Employees;
    Michael Walsh, chairman, Employee Compensation Appeals 
Board, U.S. Department of Labor;
    Shelby Hallmark, Acting Director, Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor; and,
    Patricia Dalton, Acting Inspector General, U.S. Department 
of Labor.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, HON. JIM TURNER, HON. TOM 
  LANTOS, HON. MAJOR R. OWENS, HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, HON. CAROLYN B. 
  MALONEY, HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, HON. CHAKA FATTAH, HON. ELIJAH E. 
  CUMMINGS, HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH, HON. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, HON. DANNY 
  K. DAVIS, HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY, HON. HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., AND HON. 
  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                            I. Introduction

    We commend the majority's efforts to highlight the 
importance of administering the provisions of the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act [FECA] in a just and fair manner, 
and we agree that many of the report's findings and 
recommendations are valid. The record before the committee 
indicates that Office of Workers' Compensation Programs [OWCP] 
should improve its communications problems and customer 
services.
    However, the majority report, in some instances, lacks 
balance. It does not adequately acknowledge the progress the 
OWCP has made to date or the ongoing efforts by the OWCP to 
improve its programs. Nor does the report sufficiently document 
many of its recommendations. Additionally, the minority 
recommends that the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board 
[ECAB] ensure that the appellants' files are complete before 
docketing them.

                       II. Progress is Being Made

    While we acknowledge that there are injured Federal 
employees who have not received satisfactory treatment in the 
adjudication of their claims, the OWCP has done a generally 
sound job. For example, of the roughly 170,000 injuries 
reported to the OWCP each year, the majority are approved 
without delay, most being approved for payment of medical bills 
immediately upon OWCP's receipt of the notice of the injury 
from the employing agency.\1\ More than 89 percent of all 
claims are approved on initial adjudication.\2\ The percentage 
is higher, 93 percent, for traumatic injury claims, which are 
generally more straightforward than occupational disease 
claims.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Testimony of Shelby Hallmark, House Committee on Government 
Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology, hearing on ``Federal Workers Compensation Program: Are 
Injured Federal Workers Being Treated Fairly?'' (Sept. 21, 2000).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the OWCP has made some improvement on the 
timeliness of decisions. The OWCP has an adjudication goal of 
45 days for traumatic injuries, 90 days for simple occupational 
disease, and 184 days for extended occupational disease.\4\ For 
cases that went before the ECAB in fiscal year 1998, the 
average time to issue a decision on the merits of appeal 
following an oral hearing was 361 days.\5\ That time has been 
reduced to 277 days in fiscal year 1999, and it is presently 
down to 242 days.\6\ With increased staff and more 
sophisticated automated support, the backlog of cases pending 
with ECAB has been reduced by 26 percent over the last 2 
years.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    III. Response to Recommendations

    We submit the following additional views to the majority's 
recommendations.

  LMajority Recommendation A: Provisions of the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act should be enforced, specifically 
those provisions dealing with employers who interfere with an 
employee's legitimate claim for compensation due to a work-
related injury or illness.

    The minority concurs that all provisions of FECA should be 
strictly enforced. Claimants deserve a quick and thorough 
review of their case under the applicable statutes and 
regulations. However, while we agree with this recommendation, 
the majority report has not shown sufficient documentation to 
support the allegation that the provisions of FECA are not 
being enforced. For example, the majority report cites the case 
of Sammy Lopez, whose claim was prejudiced by the actions of 
the employing agency. According to Shelby Hallmark, Acting 
Director of the OWCP, ``we are not guided by agency activity, 
and we do as best we can to shield our claims examiners from 
being hounded, if you will, as has been suggested here. I don't 
believe that our claims examiners in the district offices feel 
that they must reach a particular result. And I'm not aware of 
agencies attempting to pressure, or they certainly don't 
attempt to pressure me to come up with a result of one kind of 
another on a case.'' \8\ Other than Mr. Lopez's example, we are 
not given any statistical evidence to support the allegation 
that interference by employers is a common practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id.

  LMajority Recommendation B: Provisions in the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act must be clarified to require a 
third opinion by a qualified physician when an employee's 
attending physician and an OWCP physician disagree on the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
diagnosis and prognosis of a work-related injury or disease.

    While we believe that the claimant should have every 
opportunity to present his or her case, the report has provided 
insufficient evidence to support this recommendation. We do not 
know, based upon the report, whether a third opinion is always 
necessary or prudent from a medical or legal standpoint. The 
current policy followed by the OWCP allows claims examiners to 
weigh the evidence presented by the two physicians to determine 
if it is truly in conflict, or if one opinion takes precedence. 
The OWCP has stated that the policy of holding that a medical 
conflict does not exist simply because two physicians disagree 
is consistent with the approach taken by administrators of 
other benefit programs such as the Social Security 
Administration.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Letter from Shelby Hallmark, Deputy Director, Office of 
Workers' Compensation Programs, to Representative Jim Turner (July 26, 
2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In some cases, the requirement that every disagreement 
merit a third party opinion, even when not necessary, could 
result in a costly, time consuming burden for the OWCP and the 
claimants that would not necessarily result in a better system. 
The majority report uses one example, involving Joseph Perez, 
to imply that such a recommendation is warranted as whole. We 
are not given any other cases, statistical evidence, or legal 
opinions which would support the recommendation that would 
require an automatic third opinion if a disagreement exists.
    While we always support a claimant's right to a third 
opinion when merited, we reserve judgment on the majority 
report's recommendation until more evidence is presented. 
Additionally, the current law regarding the requirement of a 
third opinion should be clarified so as to avoid confusion in 
future claims adjudications.

  LMajority Recommendation C: The Division of Federal 
Employees' Compensation within the Department of Labor should 
make every effort to provide telephone access to FECA 
claimants, their representatives, and medical providers. This 
effort should include a centralized communications center.

    The minority strongly agrees that every effort should be 
made to provide telephone access to FECA claimants. However, 
the OWCP also agrees, and has already initiated a wide range of 
efforts in this regard, including a $5.7 million budget request 
for fiscal year 2001 to fund, among other things, a centralized 
call center.\10\ The problem is that Congress has not accepted 
this request. Among other things, the requested increase would 
provide: a national call center, installation of ``800'' 
telephone lines for medical authorizations, a review of each 
district office by a communication specialist, and telephone 
system hardware upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Testimony of Shelby Hallmark, supra n. 1.

  LMajority Recommendation D: While timeframes must be 
set for claim resolutions, they must not be at the expense of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quality, well-thought-out decisions.

    The minority strongly agrees that the OWCP should not 
sacrifice quality decisions in order to meet deadlines. Such a 
policy would be detrimental to claimants who have legitimate 
cases which may, due to the difficult nature of their claim, 
take longer to process. Additionally, the failure to thoroughly 
consider a decision would be contrary to the policy of FECA, 
which is to provide Federal employees who are injured on the 
job with a sure benefit recovery without the necessity of 
litigation. However, the report has failed to adequately 
document that the OWCP is currently issuing decisions based on 
a deadline rather than a just and thoughtful review. In fact, 
the majority report states that many claimants are subject to 
unnecessary delays, often having to wait months and years for 
each adjudication process of their claims.

  LMajority Recommendation E: Congress should consider 
establishing an independent board, such as the board overseeing 
ongoing reforms at the Internal Revenue Service, to review, 
recommend, and oversee reforms at the Office of Workers' 
Compensation Programs. This board should also consider and 
recommend to Congress whether appeals by Federal workers under 
the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs should be extended 
to include the Federal court system.

    We acknowledge that Congress should exercise its oversight 
role on the OWCP and work to reform any problems that are 
preventing injured Federal workers from receiving a fair and 
just review of their claims. Additionally, Congress should 
consider any legislation that might help achieve the goal of 
providing a quality program. However, we are not convinced that 
an additional board would be a wise use of taxpayer funds. 
Congress is already endowed with the power to hold hearings, 
gather information, and enact legislative measures to reform 
the OWCP. Congress should not look to a board as a substitute 
for responsibilities that it is already equipped to handle. 
Furthermore, a board might be unnecessary, unduly burdensome, 
and actually serve to delay an attempt by Congress to enact 
reform.

                      IV. Minority Recommendation

    In addition to the recommendations in the majority report 
that we support, we also recommend that to ensure that an 
appellant's case is not remanded due to ministerial 
deficiencies, the ECAB have a screening process in place to 
ensure that files sent from the OWCP for appeal are complete 
before docketing the case.
    During the hearing before the Government Management, 
Information, and Technology Subcommittee on September 21, 2000, 
we were presented with two examples in which an appellant's 
case was remanded due to an incomplete file. Clete Weiser, an 
attorney from Texas who handles OWCP cases, discussed the case 
of John Bright in which the ECAB waited approximately 23 months 
to require the appellant to provide proof that she was the 
executrix of her husband's estate.\11\ Regarding the John 
Bright case, Mr. Weiser stated that a review of the file to 
identify missing documents was ``not being done until the 23rd 
month. And that's unconscionable, in my view, for an 
administrative office to do that.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Testimony of C.B. Weiser, House Committee on Government 
Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology, hearing on ``Federal Workers' Compensation Program: Are 
Injured Federal Employees Being Treated Fairly?'' (Sept. 21, 2000).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, Mr. Weiser discussed the case of Dan Gregg, 
who appealed his case to the ECAB on May 30, 1998. After 
holding the case for approximately 23 months, the ECAB issued 
an order remanding the case to the OWCP District Office in 
Chicago, IL, to issue a decision on the basis that the OWCP 
District Office had not provided the appellant's file to the 
ECAB. Upon remand, the District Office reissued its decision 
denying the appellant's claim which was promptly appealed to 
the ECAB on May 22, 2000. The ECAB has advised that it will not 
issue a decision in the appellant's case for another 24 
months.\13\ Representative Jim Turner (D-TX) stated that ``the 
reason for its remand was the fact that the file wasn't 
complete, which seems to me to be a ministerial matter, it 
should have been determined within at least 30 to 60 days and 
corrected.'' \14\ Mr. Michael J. Walsh, the chairman of ECAB, 
agreed, and went on to state ``[i]f in fact they can't get it 
to us, then the only thing that we have available to us is what 
we call kind of an order to show cause, we say, get the case to 
us in 30 days, or we'll have to remand it for reconstruction.'' 
\15\ In response, Mr. Weiser stated, ``I find it hard to 
believe that you cannot determine within the first 30, 60, or 
90 days of receiving an appeal, you cannot determine that you 
either have or do not have a file from the OWCP district 
office. In at least the cases I've had, action is not being 
done.'' \16\ According to Mr. Weiser, ``You shouldn't have to 
wait 23 months to find out that, gee, you don't have the case 
file. And then the case is remanded, and when it goes back up, 
now you have another 24 months.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ Testimony of Representative Jim Turner, House Committee on 
Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, 
and Technology, hearing on ``Federal Workers' Compensation Program: Are 
Injured Federal Employees Being Treated Fairly?'' (Sept. 21, 2000).
    \15\ Testimony of Michael J. Walsh, House Committee on Government 
Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and 
Technology, hearing on ``Federal Worker's Compensation Program: Are 
Injured Federal Workers Being Treated Fairly?'' (Sept. 21, 2000).
    \16\ Testimony of C.B. Weiser, supra n. 11.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Based upon the testimony at the hearing, it appears that no 
system is in place to screen the appellants' files to ensure 
that they are complete before scheduling them for hearing. In 
the event that the files are found incomplete or missing, they 
are remanded back to the OWCP and required to have another 
decision before they can be appealed before the ECAB. The 
minority believes that the OWCP and the ECAB should ensure that 
the necessary documentation is complete before docketing the 
file. Injured Federal workers deserve a timely hearing, and we 
believe that it is wrong to remand a case from the ECAB back to 
the OWCP and request another decision due to a ministerial 
matter.

                                   Hon. Henry A. Waxman.
                                   Hon. Jim Turner.
                                   Hon. Tom Lantos.
                                   Hon. Major R. Owens.
                                   Hon. Edolphus Towns.
                                   Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney.
                                   Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
                                   Hon. Chaka Fattah.
                                   Hon. Elijah E. Cummings.
                                   Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich.
                                   Hon. Rod R. Blagojevich.
                                   Hon. Danny K. Davis.
                                   Hon. John F. Tierney.
                                   Hon. Harold E. Ford, Jr.
                                   Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky.

                                  

```