Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

2006

OWCP

Annual Report to Congress FY 2006

Submitted to Congress 2009

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment Standards Administration
Material contained in this publication is in

the public domain and may be reproduced,

fully or partially, without permission of the

Federal Government. Source credit is

requested but is not required. Permission is

required only to reproduce any copyrighted

material contained herein.

This material will be made

available to individuals upon request.

(202)693-0031

Internet address:

www.dol.gov/esa/owcp_org.htm

Submitted to Congress 2009

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment Standards Administration, Shelby Hallmark, Acting Assistant Secretary

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs,Shelby Hallmark, Director

OWCP Annual 

Report to Congress FY 2006
SECRETARY OF LABOR

WASHINGTON

THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I have enclosed the Department of Labor's annual report to Congress on the FY 2006 operations

of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. The report covers administration of the

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act as required by Section 8152 of that Act, the Black Lung

Benefits Act as required by Section 426(b) of that Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act (LHWCA) as required by Section 42 of that Act, and the Energy Employees

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, for the period October 1, 2005, through

September 30, 2006.

Separate enclosures contain reports on annual audits of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act Special Fund and the District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act

Special Fund accounts as required by Section 44(j) of LHWCA.

I trust that this report both fulfills the requirements of the respective laws and is useful to

Congress and other interested parties as a comprehensive source of information on the

administration and operation of Federal workers' compensation programs.

Sincerely,

Elaine L. Chao

Enclosures
Assistant Secretary’s Message

Director’s Message

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

Black Lung Benefits Act

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Appendix

Office Directory

2

3

5

15

29

43

55

80

Contents
Director’s

Message

Assistant

Secretary’s Message

23

Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 was a successful year for

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

(OWCP). Each of the four programs that make

up OWCP performed effectively, meeting or

exceeding all ten of the indicators under the

Department of Labor’s Government

Performance Results Act (GPRA) goal to

“minimize the human, social, and financial

impact of work-related injuries for workers and

their families.”

The Federal Employees’ Compensation

(FEC) program not only met each of its five

GPRA goals, but also completed a very

successful third year of the President’s Safety,

Health and Return-to-Employment (SHARE)

initiative. Under FEC leadership, the

government as a whole (less the Postal Service,

which is not covered by the SHARE initiative),

exceeded the goal for the timely filing of injuries

by more than 20 percent and achieved the lost

production day reduction goal for the first time.

The reduction in new injuries under SHARE

resulted in less than 140,000 new Federal

Employee Compensation Act claims during the

year, the lowest since 1974. After a challenging

year of transition, the FEC program restored

operational stability and expanded the

capabilities of its new claims adjudication and

management system.

The Longshore and Black Lung

programs successfully achieved each of their

GPRA indicators while at the same time

extending meaningful compliance assistance to

the affected public. Both programs improved

their performance against key GPRA goals to

speed the resolution or avoidance of claims

disputes. The Longshore program continued to

do an excellent job of managing the Defense

Base Act (DBA) caseload generated by extensive

U.S. contract services in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With total new DBA covered injury and death

claims reaching 5,075 during the year (3,999 in

Iraq and Afghanistan alone), Longshore staff

did an outstanding job of not only assisting in

the processing of this large case workload, but

providing the very important compliance

assistance and other outreach services needed

to properly take care of these sensitive claims.

OWCP completed its fifth full year of

administering Part B of the Energy Employees

Occupational Illness Compensation Program

Act (EEOICPA), and the first full year of the

new Part E program. Between the two parts of

EEOICPA, more than 21,000 employees or their

families received benefits totaling over $2.1

billion by the end of FY 2006. Payments under

the older Part B program reached a new oneyear high during FY 2006 of more than half a

billion dollars, even while the new Part E

program was being ramped up. The

EEOICPA program met all three of its GPRA

processing timeliness indicators, and, most

notably, the goal of reaching an initial

determination in at least 75 percent of the

25,000 Part E cases inherited from the

Department of Energy (DOE) was exceeded.

Most of these cases had been filed with DOE

more than four years before they were

transferred to DOL, and these workers and

their families clearly deserved to have their

cases processed as quickly as possible.

The concrete outcomes accomplished

in all four OWCP programs flow from the

effectiveness of our staff. In achieving our

challenging GPRA performance goals, while

delivering quality service to customers and

stakeholders, OWCP staff again demonstrated

their dedication to carrying out the important

missions for which we are responsible.

Shelby Hallmark

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

I am pleased to submit the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) Annual

Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 to Congress.

In FY 2006, OWCP successfully achieved

all ten of its Government Performance Results

Act standards covering each of the four

programs under its administration. In its third

year of operation, the President’s Safety, Health,

and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) initiative

continued to drive improvements in

performance against its important goals:

increasing the timely filing of injury notices and

reducing injuries and lost production days for

Federal agencies. A large majority of the

agencies met or exceeded the FY 2006 goals, as

did the government as a whole. President Bush

extended SHARE for an additional three years

to use this momentum to achieve even greater

improvements in the safety and health of the

Federal sector. OWCP continued to provide

critical and highly sensitive claims management,

compliance and outreach services in response to

the high volume of new claims from employees

of contracting agencies covered under the

Defense Base Act for injuries incurred while

working in the Middle East. During the first

year of full performance of Part E of the Energy

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation

Program Act, OWCP staff substantially reduced

the backlog of more than 25,000 cases inherited

from the Department of Energy.

Shelby Hallmark

Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards
Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

I ntroduction

In 1916, President Wilson signed the first comprehensive law protecting

Federal workers from the effects of work injuries. Amended several times,

the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) now provides

workers’ compensation coverage to approximately 2.7 million Federal

workers. The FECA also provides coverage to Peace Corps and VISTA

volunteers, Federal petit and grand jurors, volunteer members of the Civil

Air Patrol, Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets, Job Corps, Youth

5
Expenses for a small number of cases are

not charged back to employing agencies, but also

are covered by the DOL appropriation. For FY

2006, these non-chargeback expenses were

approximately $28 million. Non-chargeable costs

are attributable to injuries that occurred before

December 1, 1960, when the chargeback system

was enacted, to employees of agencies that are no

longer in existence, or to injuries which have

FECA coverage under various “Fringe Acts” such

as the Contract Marine Observers Act, Law

Enforcement Officers Act, and the War Hazards

Compensation Act, that did not contain

mechanisms for billing employers.

For FY 2006, administrative expenditures

for the FEC program totaled $148.3 million. Of

this amount, $135.1 million, approximately 5.3

percent of total program costs, were direct

appropriations to the DOL’s Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP), including

$88.4 million in salaries and expenses and $46.7

million in “fair share” expenditures out of the

FECA Special Benefits account. These latter funds

are specifically earmarked for OWCP capital

investments for the

development and

operation of automated

data management and

operations support

systems, periodic roll case

management, and benefit

oversight. Another $13.2

million are separately

appropriated to the

Department for legal,

investigative, and other support from the ECAB,

Office of the Solicitor, the Office of the Inspector

General, and the U.S. Treasury.

Government Performance

Results Act

In FY 2006, the Division of Federal Employees’

Compensation (DFEC) achieved each of the five

indicators under DOL’s Government Performance

Results Act (GPRA) goal to “minimize the human,

social, and financial impact of work-related

injuries for workers and their families.”

As a result:

DFEC met its Lost Production Days rate (LPD per

100 employees) targets. LPD for U.S. Postal

Service cases was 139.9 days, exceeding its FY

2006 target of 146 days; and LPD for all other

government cases was reduced from 56.1 days to

52.2 days, exceeding the 60 day target.

Through use of Periodic Roll Management, DFEC

produced $16 million in first-year savings,

exceeding its target of $13 million.

6 7

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

Benefit Outlays

Under FECA FY 2006

TOTAL BENEFITS*: $2,419 MILLION

Long Term Disability (Wage Loss) 53.9% $1,304 Million

Medical Benefits 27.6% $ 668 Million

Temporary Disability (Wage Loss) 13.2% $ 318 Million

Death Benefits 5.3% $ 129 Million

*Actual Obligations

Conservation Corps enrollees, and non-Federal law enforcement officers when

injured under certain circumstances involving crimes against the United States.

For 90 years, the Federal Employees’ Compensation (FEC) program has

continuously evolved to meet its commitment to high quality service to employees

and Federal agencies, while minimizing the human, social and financial costs of

work-related injuries.

Benefits and Services

The primary goal of the FEC program is to assist

Federal employees who have sustained workrelated injuries or disease by providing financial

and medical benefits as well as help in returning

to work. FECA benefits include payment for all

reasonable and necessary medical treatment for

work-related injury or disease. In timely-filed

traumatic injury claims, the FECA requires the

employer to continue the injured worker's regular

pay during the first 45 calendar days of disability.

If the disability continues after 45 calendar days, or

in cases of occupational disease, the FEC program

will make payments to replace lost income.

Compensation for wage loss is paid at two-thirds

of the employee’s salary if there are no

dependents, or three-fourths if there is at least one

dependent. The FECA provides a monetary

award to injured workers for permanent

impairment of limbs and other parts of the body,

and provides benefits to survivors in the event of

work-related death. Training and job placement

assistance is available to help injured workers

return to gainful employment.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, the FEC program

provided 264,000 workers and survivors

approximately $2.4 billion in benefits for workrelated injuries, illnesses or deaths. Of these

benefit payments, over $1.6 billion were for wageloss compensation, $668 million for medical and

rehabilitation services, and $129 million for death

benefit payments to surviving dependents.

The FECA is the exclusive remedy by

which Federal employees may obtain disability,

medical, and/or survivor benefits from the Federal

government for workplace injuries. Decisions for

or against the payment of benefits may be

appealed to the Employees’ Compensation

Appeals Board (ECAB), an independent body in

the Department of Labor (DOL). Program

activities are carried out in the 12 program district

offices around the country.

Funding

Benefits are paid from the Employees’

Compensation Fund. Agencies are billed each

August for benefits paid for their employees from

the Fund, and most agencies, other than the U.S.

Postal Service (USPS) and non-appropriated fund

agencies, include those chargeback costs in their

next annual appropriation request to Congress.

Remittances to the Fund are not made until the

first month of the subsequent fiscal year (or later, if

an agencyís full-year appropriation is enacted

after the subsequent fiscal year begins). The

annual DOL appropriation makes up any

difference between prior year remittances and

current year need, which is affected by Federal

wage increases and inflation in medical costs.
for the first three goals of the initiative.

However, all agencies will be required to

achieve at least a 50 percent timely filing

rate under Goal 3. Those agencies for

which a five percent per year

improvement from their FY 2003 baseline

results in a FY 2007 goal higher than 50

percent, will have their performance

tracked against that formula-driven

target, except that no agency’s goal will be

required to exceed 95 percent. In FY 2008

and FY 2009, the minimum thresholds

will rise to 55 percent and 60 percent,

respectively. The Goal 4 target also has

been slightly modified. LPD figures were

revised due to a data system change

which yields a more accurate compilation of lost

days. FY 2006 outcomes were recalculated using

the new computation methodology and will be

used as the new baseline for LPDs. Agencies with

FY 2006 baseline LPDs at or below 15 days will be

charged with maintaining an LPD rate of 15 or

less. All other agencies will have their progress

measured against the formula-driven targets of

reducing LPDs by one percent per year.

iFECS-Based

Case Adjudication and

Management

FY 2006 was a productive year for the FEC

program as it returned to operational stability

with the expanded capabilities afforded by the

successful deployment of its new claims

adjudication and management system, the

integrated Federal Employees’ Compensation

System (iFECS). Enhancements and application

adjustments to the new system continued, helping

claims examiners become more effective and

efficient in case adjudication and management

of claims.

Approximately 140,000 new injury and

illness claims were filed under FECA in FY 2006.

Eighty-five percent were for traumatic injuries,

such as those caused by slips and falls. The rest

were for medical conditions arising out of longterm exposure, repeated stress or strain, or other

continuing conditions of the work environment.

For traumatic injury claims, 93.8 percent were

adjudicated within 45 days of the day OWCP

received notice of the injury. In FY 2006, the FEC

program also achieved a high rate of timeliness in

deciding non-traumatic injury claims despite the

complexities involved. For “basic” occupational

disease cases with an uncomplicated fact pattern,

86.7 percent were adjudicated within 90 days.

Seventy-four percent of the more complex nontraumatic cases were adjudicated within 180 days.

The program achieved a rate of increase of 6.3

percent in per-case medical costs in FECA

compared to an increase of 8.6 percent for

nationwide health care costs.

Targets were met by DFEC in four key

communication performance areas: call handling

quality; average caller times; calls responded to on

same day; and access to electronic information.

Safety, Health, and Return-toEmployment Initiative

In 2004, President George W. Bush launched the

Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment

(SHARE) Initiative for Federal Executive Branch

agencies. SHARE was established to run for fiscal

years 2004 through 2006, with the Department of

Labor leading the Initiative. Secretary of Labor

Elaine L. Chao assigned the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration and the OWCP with

responsibility for administering and monitoring

program efforts.

OWCP has completed the third year of

data collection and performance tracking under

the SHARE Initiative. OWCP continued to

collaborate with agencies in achieving two of the

Initiative’s goals: to increase the timely filing of

injury notices by at least five percent per year; and

to reduce lost production days due to workplace

injuries and illnesses by at least one percent per

year. Agencies were encouraged to challenge

themselves by setting more ambitious annual

targets and many did, particularly in the area of

timely claim submissions.

A major accomplishment in the third year

of SHARE was the continued improvement in the

timely filing of injury notices. OWCP’s ability to

act promptly on medical bills and prevent any

interruption of income is directly and critically

related to the early submission of claim forms. By

filing 71.1 percent of their cases with OWCP

within 14 days, non-Postal agencies exceeded the

FY 2006 goal by more than 20 percent. Fifteen of

18 departments met or exceeded the timely filing

goal, with 17 of 18 departments increasing their

timeliness over the baseline in the third year of the

Initiative.

With non-Postal agencies averaging 52.2

lost days per 100 employees versus a goal of 54.3

lost days, the SHARE goal for lost production

days (LPD) was met for the first time in FY 2006.

Performance in this area demonstrated a marked

improvement over FY 2005’s rate of 56.1 days.

Eleven of the 18 departments and the majority of

the independent agencies met or exceeded the FY

2006 goal. The achievement of this difficult goal in

FY 2006 demonstrates that agencies are focusing

on the long-term changes needed to improve their

disability case management programs.

To reaffirm the Administration’s

commitment to improving safety and health in the

Federal sector, President Bush extended the

SHARE initiative for three years on September 29,

2006. This was a very important step, since

OWCP cannot meet its GPRA goals for the FEC

program without the continuing improved

performance of its partners in the employing

agencies. The goals and goal-setting methodology

for SHARE II remain essentially the same; FY 2003

agency performance data will remain the baseline

8 9

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

FECA Benefit Expenditures

IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS*

 FISCAL YEAR

$1,400

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$0

*Actual Obligations in current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical

workers, U.S. city average, all items), 1982-1984=100.

 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
10 11

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

While early intervention is crucial, the

FEC program continued to dedicate resources to

the thorough review of long-term disability cases.

The Periodic Roll Management (PRM) staff

arranges second opinion medical examinations,

vocational rehabilitation, and placement

assistance, with a goal of reemploying injured

workers. PRM has proven to be extremely

successful, with outcomes exceeding OWCP’s

target estimate of $13 million. In FY 2006, staff

achieved compensation savings of $16.1 million.

Of the cases that were screened, benefits were

adjusted or terminated in nearly 1,500 cases where

beneficiaries’ disabilities had either resolved or

lessened to the point that return to work was

possible. Savings from these actions will continue

in subsequent years.

Central

Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued

to achieve improvements in operating efficiencies.

During FY 2006, DFEC realized an additional

$50.9 million reduction in costs due to further

system improvements in editing bills, which in

turn reduced costs charged back to agencies.

Timely and accurate medical bill

processing is a critical element in administration of

the FECA. In FY 2006, pharmacy bill processing

was enhanced to ensure that the therapeutic class

of drugs and medications is related or relevant to

claimants’ accepted conditions for compensation

and benefits.

In FY 2006, the vendor processed

4,844,286 bills and handled 835,741 telephone

calls. Authorizations for treatment were

processed in an average of 2.3 work days and 99

percent of bills were processed in 28 days.

Enrollment of 7,270 new providers brought the

total of enrolled providers to 271,126.

Hearings and Review

If an individual disagrees with the claims

examiner’s formal decision on a claim, he or she

may request from the Branch of Hearings and

Review that an oral hearing or a written review of

the record take place. In FY 2006, the Branch

received a total of 6,241 incoming requests for

reviews of the written record and oral hearings,

and issued a total of 7,424 decisions.

In FY 2006, customer service and

turnaround times improved in all measured areas.

The period of time between receipt of a case file

and the issuance of a remand or reversal before a

hearing decreased by an average of 27 percent,

from 128 days in FY 2005 to 94 days in FY 2006.

For those case files where a hearing was held, the

time period for issuance of a decision decreased

by 12 percent, from an average of 273 days in FY

2005 to 239 days in FY 2006. For decisions

emanating from a review of the written record, the

Branch improved by an average of 22 percent,

from 127 days in FY 2005 to 99 days in FY 2006.

Performance Assessment

Under the Program Assessment Rating Tool

(PART) process in 2002, DFEC was rated

“Moderately Effective.” Key recommendations of

the PART review included pursuing actions to

improve the performance of the program. In FY

2006, these actions included:

Working with Congress to update the benefit

structure and convert benefits for retirement-age

individuals to a typical retirement benefit.

Implementing recommendations made in a 2004

evaluation of the program’s design, strategic

goals, and strategies conducted under contract

with ICF Consulting, in particular pursuit of

expansion of disability management to improve

return-to-work outcomes of new injury cases

during the continuation-of-pay period.

Tracking and improving customer satisfaction.

Legislative Reform

Work continued with the Congressional

committees to find sponsors and to work out

timing for the proposed reform of the FECA which

is included in the President’s FY 2007 Budget. The

goals of the reform are to enhance incentives for

injured employees to return to work; address

retirement equity issues; and update and make

other benefit changes. Specifically, the reform

proposes to:

Convert compensation for new injuries or new

claims for disability to a lower benefit at the Social

Security retirement age.

Move the 3-day waiting period during which an

injured worker is not entitled to compensation to

the point immediately after an injury.

FECA Benefits Charged To

Employing Agencies

CHARGEBACK YEAR 2006

Chargeback Total: $2,441 Million

Postal Service $884 Million

Defense $617 Million*

Veterans Affairs $164 Million

Homeland Security $ 157 Million

Transportation $ 93 Million

Justice $ 89 Million

Agriculture $ 70 Million

All Other $ 367 Million

*Defense includes Navy ($244M), Army ($180M), Air Force ($127M),

and Deptartment of Defense ($65M).

Note: The sum of individual agencies may not equal total due to rounding.
callers received courteous service, an increase

of 0.6 percent over the previous fiscal year.

Remaining nearly constant, use of clear and

understandable language was reported in 98.9

percent of calls. Increasing one point over FY

2005’s performance, 97.9 percent of calls met

knowledge and accuracy standards. The goal of

95 percent was exceeded in each of these quality

categories.

Sixty-one percent of calls to the district

offices were responded to on the same day they

were received. While falling short of the goal of 67

percent, this nevertheless represents a significant

number of callers who received same-day service

from the district offices. For calls not responded to

on the same day, the average response time was

2.69 days, falling slightly short of the goal of 2.6

days. Nearly 95 percent of all calls are responded

to in three days or less.

12 13

Change the way that schedule awards are paid to

allow uniform lump sum payments to federal

employees eligible for such awards.

Eliminate augmented compensation for

dependents but raise the basic benefit level for all

claimants.

Allow OWCP to recover the costs, estimated at

over $2 million annually, paid by responsible third

parties to FECA beneficiaries during the

continuation of pay period.

Increase benefit levels for funeral expenses from

$1,000 to $5,000.

Increase benefit levels for disfigurement resulting

from work injury.

Estimated savings to the government over ten

years through the enactment of these proposals

would be $592 million.

FECA Performance Study

An independent study of DFEC program

performance and effectiveness in 2004 produced

key recommendations to improve the DFEC early

case intervention program. In particular, DFEC

was advised to strengthen disability case

management during the continuation-of-pay

period immediately following an injury while the

cases remain in the primary jurisdiction of their

Federal employing agencies. To pursue that

recommendation, DFEC enlisted the services of

another contractor in FY 2006 to assess its current

COP Nurse Program, identify best practices used

by state and private sector organizations in early

case management, and identify strategies for

improving the effectiveness of DFEC technical

assistance and training programs in working

with Federal agencies.

DFEC seeks to help agencies: adopt

effective practices to create re-employment

opportunities, facilitate job retention, and create

opportunities for advancement; better process

new injury claims and manage injury caseloads;

and better consider disability management costs

and benefits in their human resource and

personnel policies and operations. Best practices,

new approaches, and efficiency recommendations resulting from the performance study also

will directly support the objectives of the

SHARE initiative to reduce Federal injury rates,

speed submission of claims, and reduce lost

production days.

Services to Claimants and

Beneficiaries

Quality customer service and customer

satisfaction are key components of DFEC’s

mission and “Pledge to Our Customers.” Of the

more than 1.5 million calls to the DFEC district

offices, 33.6 percent were handled by Customer

Service Representatives (CSRs) in the 12 district

office call centers. Calls were answered in an

average of 2.34 minutes, nearly 40 seconds below

the goal of three minutes. This represents a

decrease in the average wait time of 13 seconds

compared to FY 2005.

To help ensure quality and to identify

areas where additional CSR training is needed,

silent monitoring of calls to the district office

phone banks continued during the fiscal year.

Communications Specialists on DFEC’s staff

listen to both sides of a conversation and, using a

standardized Quality Monitoring scorecard,

document the CSRs’ performance. The results of

quality silent monitoring coupled with local

telephone survey results show that 98.6 percent of

Number of Employees

(FTE Staffing Used) 870

Administrative Expenditures

1 

 $ 135.1 M

Cases Created 139,874

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 19,819

Total Compensation and Benefits

(Actual Obligations)

2 

 $2,418.8 M

Number of Medical Bills Processed 4,844,286

1 OWCP expenditures; excludes DOL support costs, but includes "fair share" capital

expenditures of $39.5 million in FY 2005 and $46.7 million in FY 2006, respectively.

2 Compensation, medical, and survivor benefits.

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

 912

 $ 126.3 M

 151,690

 21,455

 $2,476.5 M

 4,898,090

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

 FY 2005 FY 2006
Introduction

The Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC)

completed its thirty-third year administering Part C of the Black Lung program

in 2006. The initial Black Lung benefits program was enacted as part of the Coal

Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (the Act). This law created a system to

compensate victims of dust exposure in coal mines with public funds initially

administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA).

The number of claims filed in the early 1970’s greatly exceeded

expectations. The Act was amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972

(BLBA) to require the use of simplified interim eligibility criteria for all

Black Lung Benefits Act

15
16 17

Black Lung Benefits Act

Benefits and Services

The Black Lung Part C program provides two

types of benefits: monthly wage replacement and

medical services. The program pays a standard

monthly benefit (income replacement) to miners

who are determined to be totally disabled from

black lung disease, and to certain eligible survivors

of deceased miners. The monthly rate of benefits

is adjusted upward to provide additional

compensation for up to three eligible dependents.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, monthly and retroactive

benefit payments totaled $265.4 million.

The Part C program also provides both

diagnostic and medical treatment services for

totally disabling pneumoconiosis. Diagnostic

testing is provided for all miner-claimants to

determine the presence or absence of black lung

disease, and the degree of associated disability.

These tests include a chest x-ray, pulmonary

function study, arterial blood gas study, and a

physical examination. Medical coverage for

treatment of black lung disease and directly

related conditions is provided for minerbeneficiaries. This coverage includes prescription

drugs, office visits and hospitalizations. Also

provided, with prior approval, are durable

medical equipment (primarily home oxygen),

outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation therapy and

home nursing visits.

Medical expenditures under the Black

Lung Part C program during FY 2006 were $41.7

million. This includes payments of $3.7 million for

diagnostic services, $35.5 million for medical

treatment, and $2.5 million in reimbursements to

the United Mine Workers of America Health and

Retirement Funds for the cost of treating Black

Lung beneficiaries. Approximately 291,000 bills

were processed during the year.

Total Black Lung Part C program

expenditures for all benefits in FY 2006 were

$307.1 million, a decrease of $22.8 million from FY

2005. In FY 2006, benefits were provided from the

Trust Fund to approximately 35,000 beneficiaries

each month.

State workers’ compensation laws

require coal mine operators to obtain insurance

or qualify as a self-insured employer to cover

employee benefit liabilities incurred due to

occupational diseases that are covered by state

law. If state workers' compensation is paid for

pneumoconiosis, any Federal black lung benefit

received for that disease is offset or reduced by the

amount of the state benefit on a dollar-for-dollar

basis. As of September 30, 2006, there were 1,407

Federal black lung claims being offset due to

concurrent state benefits.

As an additional benefit to claimants,

the law provides for payment of attorneys’ fees

and legal costs incurred in connection with

approved benefit claims. The fees must be

approved by adjudication officers. During the

past year DCMWC processed 44 fee petitions

and paid approximately $0.6 million in attorneys’

fees from the Trust Fund.

In FY 2006, 1,257 claims were forwarded

for formal hearings before the Office of

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and 520

claims were forwarded on appeal to the Benefits

Review Board (BRB). At the end of FY 2006, the

OALJ had 2,324 claims pending while 512 were

pending before the BRB.

In the Black Lung Part B program, nearly

42,000 active beneficiaries (with over 4,200

dependents) were receiving approximately $26

million in monthly cash benefits as of September

30, 2006. Part B benefits in FY 2006 totaled nearly

$316 million. DCMWC completed more than

6,700 maintenance actions on Part B claims during

the year, on average less than one week from

notification.

 FISCAL YEAR

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0

*Current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical workers, U.S. city

average, all items), 1982-1984=100.

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004

Black Lung

Benefit Expenditures

IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS*

2003

claims filed with SSA, and to transfer the receipt of new claims to the Department of Labor (DOL)

in 1973. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) assumed responsibility for

processing and paying new claims on July 1, 1973. Until recently, most of the claims filed prior to

that date remained within the jurisdiction of SSA. Further amendments in the Black Lung Benefits

Reform Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-239) mandated the use of interim criteria to resolve old

unapproved claims. The Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-227) created the

Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (Trust Fund), financed by an excise tax on coal mined and sold in

the United States. The law authorized the Trust Fund to pay benefits in cases where no responsible

mine operator could be identified and transferred liability for claims filed with DOL based on pre1970 employment to the Trust Fund. It also permitted miners approved under Part B to apply for

medical benefits available under Part C. These amendments made the Federal program

permanent but state benefits continued to offset Federal benefits where they were available.

Current administration of the Black Lung Part C program is governed by legislation

enacted in 1981. These amendments tightened eligibility standards, eliminated certain burden of

proof presumptions, and temporarily increased the excise tax on coal to address the problem of a

mounting insolvency of the Trust Fund, which was indebted to the U.S. Treasury by over $1.5

billion at that time.

In 1997, the responsibility for managing active SSA (Part B) Black Lung claims was

transferred to DOL by a Memorandum of Understanding between SSA and DOL. This change

improved customer service to all Black Lung beneficiaries, and in 2002, an Administration proposal

to place the administering responsibility for both programs with DOL was made permanent under

the Black Lung Consolidation of Administrative Responsibilities Act.

2005 2006
Black Lung Benefits Act

Black Lung

Disability Trust Fund

The Trust Fund, established in 1977 to shift the

responsibility for the payment of black lung

claims from the Federal government to the coal

industry, is administered jointly by the Secretaries

of Labor, the Treasury, and Health and Human

Services. Claims that were approved by SSA

under Part B of the BLBA are not paid by the Trust

Fund, but rather from the general revenues of the

Federal government.

Trust Fund revenues consist of monies

collected from the industry in the form of an excise

tax on mined coal that is sold or used by

producers; funds collected from responsible mine

operators (RMOs) for monies they owe the Trust

Fund; payments of various fines, penalties, and

interest; refunds collected from claimants and

beneficiaries for overpayments; and repayable

advances obtained from Treasury’s general fund

when Trust Fund expenses exceed revenues.

Excise taxes, the main source of revenue, are

collected by the Internal Revenue Service and

transferred to the Trust Fund. In FY 2006, the

Trust Fund received a total of $607.4 million in tax

revenues. An additional $5.0 million was

collected from RMOs in interim benefits, fines,

penalties, and interest. Total receipts of the Trust

Fund in FY 2006 were nearly $1.1 billion,

including $445 million in repayable advances

from the Department of the Treasury.

Total Trust Fund disbursements during

FY 2006 were almost $1.1 billion. These

expenditures included $307.1 million for income

and medical benefits, $695.0 million for interest

payments on repayable advances from the

Treasury, and $58.0 million to administer the

program ($33.1 million in OWCP direct costs and

$24.9 million for legal adjudication and various

financial management and investigative support

provided by the Office of the Solicitor, the OALJ,

the BRB, Office of the Inspector General, and the

Department of the Treasury).

In 1981, the Black Lung Benefits Revenue

provisions temporarily increased the previous

excise tax to $1.00 per ton for underground coal

and $0.50 per ton on surface mined coal, with a

cap of four percent of sales price. In 1986, under

the Comprehensive Budget Reconciliation Act of

1985, excise tax rates were increased again by 10

percent. The rates for underground and surface

mined coal were raised to $1.10 and $0.55 per ton

respectively, and the cap was increased to 4.4

percent of the sales price. These tax rates will

remain until December 31, 2013, after which the

rates will revert to their original levels of $0.50

underground, $0.25 surface, and a limit of two

percent of sales price.

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued

to achieve improvements in operating efficiency

and effectiveness. DCMWC realized a $350,000

reduction in medical costs due to further system

improvements in editing bills.

Timely and accurate medical bill

processing is a critical element in administration

of the Black Lung Program. In FY 2006, pharmacy

bill processing was enhanced to ensure that the

therapeutic class of drugs and medications is

related or relevant to treatment for black lung

diseases.

In FY 2006, the vendor processed 290,998

Black Lung bills. Ninety-nine percent of bills were

processed within 28 days. The number of

telephone calls handled was 44,384. Enrollment of

1,334 new providers brought the total of enrolled

providers to 100,835.

Performance Assessment

DCMWC was reviewed in 2003 using the

Program Assessment Rating Tool. The Black

Lung program achieved a rating of “Moderately

Effective,” and the assessment noted that the

program purpose is clear, that the program

effectively targets its resources, has ambitious

long-term performance measures, and maintains

a relatively low (less than two percent) erroneous

payment rate. To build on this, the assessment

provided a number of recommendations for

improvement that DCMWC began to implement

in FY 2004. These initiatives included a renewed

focus on reducing the Trust Fund’s debt (see

below for details), setting a schedule of annual

targets for improving performance in both

Government Performance Results Act (GPRA)

goals and claims processing times, studying

medical cost indices to evaluate cost containment

plans, evaluating personnel utilization and

allocation, and conducting an independent study

of the program to compare it to similar workers’

compensation programs and suggest practices

and procedures for improvement.

During FY 2006, an independent

consulting firm continued its evaluation of the

Black Lung Program’s outcomes, costeffectiveness, and efficiencies in order to compare

them to those of similar compensation programs.

This evaluation was renewed for a second year

after the consultant delivered its preliminary

assessment in FY 2005, which included

recommendations for modifications in the

Accountability Review process, succession

planning and training, and changes in data

collection. In FY 2006, the consultant conducted a

statistical projection of claim trends to 2020 and

initiated a study of best practices of other

compensation systems.

18 19
Legislative Proposal

to Address Trust Fund

Insolvency

Although tax receipts to the Trust Fund were

sufficient to cover benefits, current operating costs

and some interest charges, the Trust Fund needed

to borrow $445 million from the Treasury to pay

the balance of the FY 2006 interest due. By the end

of FY 2006, the Trust Fund’s cumulative debt to

the Treasury was $9.6 billion. Since benefit

payments for Black Lung claims in the late 1970’s

and early 1980’s far exceeded revenues, the Trust

Fund was forced to draw on repayable advances

from the Treasury to meet benefit obligations.

While operating costs are now covered by

revenue, the Trust Fund’s debt continues to climb.

The Trust Fund now must borrow to cover its

debt service, which amounted to nearly $695

million at the end of FY 2006.

To remedy this financial problem, DOL

and Treasury proposed a legislative package

which would:

Provide for the restructuring of the outstanding

Trust Fund debt, much of which was incurred at

the higher Treasury interest rates prevalent during

the 1980’s, thereby taking advantage of current

and lower Treasury interest rates.

Extend until the debt is repaid the current Trust

Fund excise tax levels ($1.10 per ton for coal

mined underground; $0.55 per ton for surface),

which are set to decline after December 31, 2013.

The tax rate will revert to the lower (original 1978)

rates of $0.50 per ton for underground-mined coal

sold and $0.25 per ton for surface in the year

following the elimination of the Trust Fund’s debt.

Provide a one-time appropriation to the Trust

Fund to cover the Treasury’s loss of income

caused by the restructuring.

After consultation with interested parties

and the staffs of the appropriate Congressional

committees, DOL and Treasury staffs prepared a

revised version of the proposed legislation that

was previously transmitted to Congress in 2000,

2002, and 2004. Secretary Chao and Treasury

Secretary Snow transmitted the revised legislative

proposal to the Congress on September 13, 2005.

The bill was introduced in the House of

Representatives on September 27, 2005, and it was

referred to the House Ways and Means

Committee as HR 3915. At the end of FY 2006,

HR 3915 was still pending before the Ways and

Means Committee.

Government Performance

Results Act

In FY 2006, DCMWC continued its efforts to

reach DOL’s GPRA goal to “minimize the human,

social, and financial impact of work-related

injuries for workers and their families.”

DCMWC achieved its goal to:

Increase by 13 percent over the baseline

established in FY 2001 the percentage of Black

Lung benefit claims filed under the revised

regulations, for which, following an eligibility

decision by the district director, there are no

requests for further action from any party pending

one year after receipt of the claim.

In FY 2006, 81.9 percent of claims were

resolved with no pending requests for further

action (against a target of 79.5 percent). The Black

Lung program will continue to work closely with

both its stakeholder and authorized provider

communities to ensure that delivery of services

continues to improve and performance standards

are met.

Claims Processing Timeliness

The average time required to process a claim

from the date of receipt to the issuance of a

Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) declined

from 259 days in FY 2005 to 247 days in FY 2006,

exceeding the program’s goal of 250 days. The

number of new claims decreased from 4,567

during FY 2005 to 4,120 in FY 2006. The number

of claims awaiting issuance of a Schedule for the

Submission of Additional Evidence by a district

director declined from 1,801 at the end of FY

2005 to 1,461 at the end of FY 2006. The number

of claims pending a PDO also declined, from

1,304 to 1,053.

Operation and Maintenance of

Automated Support Package

DCMWC’s Automated Support Package (ASP)

is provided through a contract. The ASP

includes a client-server computer system for all

black lung claims, statistical and data processing,

medical bills processing, telecommunications

support, and administrative functions.

During FY 2006,

DCMWC prepared for a

conversion of the ASP

database to ESA’s Enterprise Architecture database platform. Conversion

of the sub-systems began

in FY 2006 as DCMWC

worked closely with ESA

to ensure a smooth transition to the new platform,

scheduled for FY 2007.

Compliance Assistance

Section 423 of the BLBA requires that each coal

mine operator subject to the BLBA secure payment

of any benefits liability by either qualifying as a selfinsurer or insuring the risk with a stock or mutual

company, an association, or a qualified fund or

individual. Any coal mine operator failing to

secure payment is subject to a civil penalty of up to

$1,100 for each day of noncompliance.

According to FY 2006 estimates by DOL’s

Mine Safety and Health Administration, there were

2,025 active coal mine operators subject to the

requirements of the BLBA. Under the BLBA, the

Secretary of Labor can authorize a coal mine

operator to self-insure after an analysis of the

company’s application and supporting documents.

 At the close of FY 2006, 70 active companies were

authorized by the Secretary of Labor to self-insure.

These self-insurance authorizations cover

approximately 680 subsidiaries and affiliated

companies.

20 21

Black Lung Benefits Act

Management Of SSA

Part B Black Lung Claims

FY 2006

Professional And Timely Claims Maintenance Services

Provided To Part B Claimants By DCMWC Included:

Completing More Than 6,700 Maintenance Actions,

With Average Completion Time Of Less Than One

Week From Notification.

Managing The Expenditure Of Almost $316

Million In Benefits.

DCMWC Was Responsible For Nearly 42,000 Active Part B Cases.
22 23

Black Lung Benefits Act

The Responsible Operator (RO) Section

staff in DCMWC’s national office is specifically

assigned to record the existence of coal mine

operators and their insurance status. The staff

answers frequent written, telephone, and e-mail

inquiries from operators and insurance carriers

and evaluates requests for self-insurance.

During FY 2006, the RO section sent form

letters to 1,223 coal mine operators reminding

them of their statutory requirement to insure and

stay insured against their potential liability for

black lung benefits. Of these, 1,009 were found to

be insured, 52 were insured through a parent

entity or not engaged in coal mining, and 137

were uninsured companies that required

assistance. The remaining 25 were returned

unclaimed, delivered with no response, or failed

delivery for another reason. Letters also were

mailed to commercial insurers reminding them of

the statutory requirements for writing black lung

insurance and for annual reporting to DCMWC of

the companies insured and policy numbers.

These letters generated many questions from

underwriters and resulted in improved

compliance. During FY 2006, DCMWC received

3,379 reports of new or renewed policies.

Section 413(b) of the BLBA requires

DCMWC to provide each individual miner who

files a claim for benefits with the opportunity to

undergo a complete pulmonary evaluation at no

cost to the miner. The project to improve the

quality of these medical evaluations and reports

continued during FY 2006, with District Directors

and national office staff making visits to

physicians and clinics. During their visits,

DCMWC staff reviewed the physicians’ written

evaluations of the medical information obtained

during the complete pulmonary evaluations

and made suggestions for improving and

standardizing the evaluations and reports.

DCMWC officials also met several times with

physicians at state and national conferences of the

National Coalition of Black Lung and Respiratory

Disease Clinics to help improve reporting.

Litigation

COURTS OF APPEALS

During FY 2006, the courts of appeals issued

28 decisions in cases arising under the BLBA.

Fifty-two new appeals were filed. The following

summarizes the most significant appellate

decisions, grouped by their particular issue and

location in the CFR:

Statute of Limitations: 30 U.S.C. § 932(f) and 20

C.F.R. § 725.308. The statute and regulations limit

the time period during which a miner may file a

claim to three years after a medical determination

of total disability due to pneumoconiosis is

communicated to the miner. The Fourth Circuit

issued two decisions applying these provisions.

In Consolidation Coal Co. v. Williams, 453 F.3d 609

(4th Cir. 2006), the Fourth Circuit considered

whether a physician’s diagnosis of total disability

due to pneumoconiosis that the miner received,

but did not submit, before the Department denied

his first claim triggered the running of the threeyear statute of limitations for the miner’s second

claim. The court agreed with the Department’s

position that the denial of the first claim rendered

any prior physician’s opinion of total disability

due to pneumoconiosis a misdiagnosis, whether

that opinion had been submitted to the

Department or not, and therefore ineffective to

trigger the running of the statute of limitations.

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion comports with the

Tenth Circuit’s construction of the statute in

Wyoming Fuel Co. v. Director, OWCP, 90 F.3d 1502,

1507 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding that a finding

that a miner is not totally disabled due to

pneumoconiosis “repudiates any earlier medical

determination to the contrary and renders prior

medical advice to the contrary ineffective to

trigger the running of the statute of limitations.”).

In Island Creek Coal Co. v. Henline, 456 F.3d

421 (4th Cir. 2006), the coal company elicited

testimony from the miner that a physician told

him more than three years before he filed his claim

for benefits that he was totally disabled due to

pneumoconiosis. The administrative law judge

determined that the miner’s contradictory

testimony on this point was not credible, and

therefore rejected the company’s statute of

limitations defense. On appeal, the Benefits

Review Board affirmed the judge’s rejection of the

company’s defense, but based its decision on a

different ground. The Board reasoned that the

limitations period is triggered only when a miner

receives written notice that he is totally disabled

due to pneumoconiosis. Because there was no

such notice in the record, the Board held that the

judge had properly deemed the claim timely. The

Fourth Circuit reversed on this point, holding

“that neither the BLBA nor the implementing

regulations require that the notice to a miner of a

medical determination of his total disability due to

pneumoconiosis be in writing in order to trigger

the start of the three-year statute of limitations

clock on black lung claims.” The court then

remanded the case to the Board to consider

whether the judge had properly deemed the

miner’s testimony insufficient to establish the

company’s limitations defense.

Legal pneumoconiosis and the disease-causation

presumption: 30 U.S.C. §§ 902(b), 921(c)(1); 20

C.F.R. §§ 718.201(a), 718.203(b). In Andersen v.

Director, OWCP, 455 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir. 2006), the

court clarified what a claimant must prove to

establish compensable “legal pneumoconiosis.”

The regulations define “legal pneumoconiosis” as

including “any chronic lung disease or

impairment and its sequelae arising out of coal

mine employment.” 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a)(2).
In Webber v. Peabody Coal Company, 23

Black Lung Rep. 1-128 (2006), the BRB held that

the evidentiary limitations apply to medical

evidence submitted under a catch-all provision

that allows admission of “other medical

evidence” not specifically addressed in the

program regulations, such as CT-scans. It

concluded that a party may submit only one

interpretation or set of results from each such test

as part of its affirmative case. The BRB also held

that readings of digital chest x-rays must be

considered under the “other medical evidence”

provision rather than under the provision

governing consideration of standard x-rays.

Finally, the BRB addressed a provision of

the evidentiary limitations that allows a party to

submit as rebuttal evidence “one physician’s

interpretation of each chest x-ray . . . submitted”

by the opposing party in support of its

affirmative case. Agreeing with the Director, the

BRB held that this provision allows a party to

submit one x-ray interpretation in rebuttal for

each interpretation submitted by the opposing

party, even if the interpretations are of the same

film. Ward v. Consolidation Coal Corporation, 23

Black Lung Rep. 1-152 (2006).

24 25

Black Lung Benefits Act

Here, the miner proved he suffered from chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease, but did not offer

persuasive evidence that his disease arose out of

his coal mine employment. Instead, he relied on a

statutory presumption in an attempt to fill this

proof gap. The presumption provides that “[i]f a

miner who is suffering from . . . pneumoconiosis

was employed for 10 years or more [as a coal

miner] there shall be a rebuttable presumption

that his pneumoconiosis arose out of his coal mine

employment.” 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(1). Rejecting the

miner’s arguments, the court held that chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease does not fall

within the definition of legal pneumoconiosis

unless the miner affirmatively proves his coal

mine employment caused the disease. The court

further held that the ten-year-causation

presumption logically applies only to “clinical

pneumoconiosis” (i.e. diseases recognized by the

medical community as pneumoconiosis), and not

legal pneumoconiosis.

BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD

During FY 2006, the BRB issued 706 black lung

decisions, several of which significantly affect the

Secretary’s administration of the benefits program.

 The following summarizes some of the more

significant decisions of the Board, categorized by

issue:

Statute of Limitations. The BRB issued

two decisions interpreting the Act’s statute of

limitations, which provides that a claim for

benefits must be filed within three years of a

medical determination of total disability due to

pneumoconiosis that has been communicated to

the miner. In Sturgill v. Bell County Coal

Corporation, 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-160 (2006), the

Board agreed with the Director and held that an

OWCP district director’s preliminary finding of

eligibility did not trigger the three-year statute of

limitations. The Board reasoned that the district

director’s conclusion was a legal determination

and not the medical determination required by the

Act. In Brigance v. Peabody Coal Company, 23 Black

Lung Rep. 1-171 (2006), the Board held that a

claimant’s application for black lung benefits was

timely filed even though the claimant testified that

two physicians had told him he was totally

disabled due to pneumoconiosis in connection

with his earlier claim for state workers’

compensation benefits. The Board held that Sixth

Circuit precedent, which governed this case,

requires “the trigger of [a] reasoned opinion of a

medical professional” to commence the

limitations period, and that the claimant’s

testimony in this case did not demonstrate that the

standard was met.

Evidentiary Limitations. The Secretary’s

regulations impose limitations on the amount of

medical evidence that each party may submit:

(1) in support of its affirmative case; (2) in rebuttal

of evidence submitted by the opposing party; and

(3) to rehabilitate evidence made the subject of

rebuttal. The BRB issued several significant

decisions addressing the evidentiary limitations

during FY 2006:

The program regulation governing

admission of evidence at the hearing states that

evidence that exceeds the limitations “shall not be

admitted into the hearing record in the absence of

good cause.” In Brasher v. Pleasant View Mining

Company, 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-142 (2006), the

BRB agreed with the Director and held that if a

party submits more medical evidence than is

allowed under the evidentiary limitations, and

fails to argue good cause for its admission, the ALJ

may find the good cause issue waived.

The regulations require that a physician

who prepares a medical report may consider only

medical evidence that is consistent with the

evidentiary limitations but do not specify a

sanction for the report of a physician who relies on

inadmissible evidence. In Harris v. Old Ben Coal

Company, 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-104 (2006), the

BRB held that, when confronted with such a

report, an ALJ has discretion to take appropriate

action, such as considering only portions of the

report or excluding the report from the record

entirely.
26 27

Black Lung Benefits Act

Claim Withdrawal. Under the

program regulations, an ALJ may

approve a request to withdraw a

claim if it is in the best interests of

the claimant. Withdrawn claims

are considered not to have been

filed. In Bailey v. Dominion Coal

Corporation, 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-

87 (2005), the BRB affirmed an

ALJ’s decision to allow a miner to

withdraw his black lung claim

notwithstanding the employer’s

objection. Agreeing with the

Director, the BRB held that the

program regulations do not

require an ALJ to consider the

employer’s interests when

evaluating a withdrawal request.

Responsible Operator. Under the

program regulations, the district

director may retain as a party to

the claim only one potential

responsible operator when a case

is referred to the OALJ for hearing;

if that operator is later dismissed,

the Trust Fund will be liable for

benefits. To insure that the district

director’s decision is based on the same evidence

available to the ALJ, the regulations require that

the ALJ cannot consider documentary evidence

pertaining to the liability issue that was not

submitted to the district director in the absence

of extraordinary circumstances. In Weis v. Marfork

Coal Company, Inc., 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-183

(2006), appeal docketed, No. 06-1913 (4th Cir. August

16, 2006), the Board held that such documentary

evidence includes chest x-ray readings submitted

for the purpose of absolving a responsible

operator of liability.

Responsible Coal Mine Operator Beneficiaries in

Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 5,562 5,076

 Medical Benefits Only 1,146 951

Number of Employees

(FTE Staffing Used) 199 191

OWCP Administrative Expenditures3 $ 32.2 M $ 32.7 M

Total Compensation and

Benefit Payments4 $ 329.9 M $ 307.1 M

Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 36,325 33,954

 Medical Benefits Only 3,636 2,891

1

 Part C benefits are paid out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund or by the liable coal mine operator or insurer.

2

 Part B benefits are paid out of general revenue funds from the U.S. Treasury.

3

 Under Part C, excludes DOL and Department of Treasury support costs of $24.8 million in FY 2005 and $25.3 million

in FY 2006, respectively. Also excludes interest on the Trust Fund debt.

4

 Part C excludes collections from responsible coal mine operators for benefits paid by the Trust Fund on an interim

basis, refunds for OWCP administrative costs paid, and other miscellaneous reimbursements.

Black Lung Benefits Act

 FY 2005 FY 2006

 N/A N/A

 N/A N/A

 16 16

 $ 5.2 M $ 5.2 M

 $ 346.3 M $ 315.5 M

 46,562 41,625

 N/A N/A

 FY 2005 FY 2006

 Part C1 Part B2
Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act

Introduction

Enacted in 1927, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation

 Act (LHWCA) provides compensation for lost wages, medical benefits, and

rehabilitation services to longshore, harbor and other maritime workers who

are injured during their employment or who contract an occupational disease related to employment. Survivor benefits also

29
 CALENDAR YEAR**

30 31

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Longshore

Benefit Expenditures

IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS*

 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0

*Current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical workers, U.S. city

average, all items), 1982-1984=100.

**Includes total industry compensation and benefit payments under LHWCA and its

extensions as reported on a calendar year basis.

Operations

Disability compensation and medical benefits

paid by insurers and self-insurers under LHWCA

and its extensions totaled $650.7 million in

Calendar Year (CY) 2005, an 8.2 percent increase

compared to CY 2004.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, total DOL

expenditures for program operations and the

administration of LHWCA and its extensions

were $25.6 million, of which $10.7 million were the

direct costs of OWCP. The remaining nearly $15.0

million represents the cost of legal, audit, and

investigative support provided by the Office of

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), the Benefits

Review Board (BRB), the Office of the Solicitor,

and the Office of the Inspector General.

At year’s end, the Division of Longshore

and Harbor Workers' Compensation (DLHWC)

employed 92 people in the national office and 11

district offices.

During FY 2006, approximately 540

self-insured employers and insurance carriers

reported 23,537 lost-time injuries under the

LHWCA. At year's end, 14,586 maritime and

other workers were in compensation payment

status.

Significant attention continued to be

focused on Longshore program operations related

to the DBA. Activities under the DBA were

primarily the result of the conflict in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and related military activities in the

Middle East. Injuries occurring under DBA are

reported to DLHWC District Offices determined

by the geographic location of the injury

occurrence. Injuries to covered employees in the

Middle East are reported to the New York

DLHWC District Office, where claim files are

maintained, provisions of the DBA are enforced,

and dispute resolution services offered. The total

number of claims filed under DBA in FY 2006

was 5,075.

Longshore Special Fund

The Special Fund under the LHWCA was

established in the Treasury of the United States

pursuant to section 44 of the Act and is

administered by the national office of DLHWC.

Proceeds of the fund are used for payments under

section 10(h) of the LHWCA for annual

adjustments in compensation for permanent total

disability or death that occurred prior to the

effective date of the 1972 amendments, under

section 8(f) for second injury claims, under section

18(b) for cases involving employer insolvency,

are provided if the work-related injury or disease causes the employee's death.

These benefits are paid directly by an authorized self-insured employer, through an

authorized insurance carrier, or in particular circumstances, by an industry-financed

Special Fund.

In addition, LHWCA covers certain other employees through the following

extensions to the Act:

The Defense Base Act (DBA) of August 16, 1941, extends the benefits of the LHWCA

to employees working outside the continental United States under certain

circumstances set out in jurisdictional provisions. Primarily, it covers all private

employment on U.S. military bases overseas, on land used for military purposes on

U.S. territories and possessions, and on U.S. Government contracts overseas.

The Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act of June 19, 1952, covers civilian

employees in post exchanges, service clubs, etc. of the Armed Forces.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, 1953, extended Longshore

benefits to employees of firms working on the outer continental shelf of the United

States, such as off-shore drilling enterprises engaged in exploration for and

development of natural resources.

The District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act (DCCA), passed by

Congress on May 17, 1928, extended the coverage provided by the Longshore Act to

private employment in the District of Columbia. Since the District of Columbia

passed its own workers' compensation act effective July 26, 1982, OWCP handles

claims only for injuries prior to that date.

The original law, entitled the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'

Compensation Act, provided coverage to certain maritime employees injured while

working over navigable waters. These workers had been held excluded from state

workers' compensation coverage by the Supreme Court (Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen,

244 U.S. 205 (1917)).
32 33

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

 FISCAL YEAR

under sections 39(c) and 8(g) for providing

rehabilitation assistance to persons covered under

the LHWCA, and under section 7(e) to pay the

cost of medical examinations.

The Special Fund is financed through

fines and penalties levied under the LHWCA;

$5,000 payments by employers for each instance

in which a covered worker dies and when it is

determined that there are no survivors eligible for

benefits; interest payments on Fund investments;

and payment of annual assessments by

authorized insurance carriers and self-insurers.

Fines, penalties, and death benefit levies constitute

a small portion of the total amount paid into the

Special Fund each year. The largest single source

of money for the fund is the annual assessment.

A separate fund under the DCCA is also

administered by OWCP. Payments to and from

this fund apply only to the DCCA.

The LHWCA Special Fund paid $133.3

million in benefits in FY 2006, of which $123.4

million was for second injury (section 8(f)) claims.

FY 2006 expenditures from the DCCA Special

Fund totaled $10.2 million, of which $9.4 million

was for second injury cases.

Government Performance

Results Act

In FY 2006, DLHWC set the following target for

the indicator under the DOL strategic goal to

“minimize the human, social, and financial impact

of work-related injuries for workers and their

families”:

To reduce by one percent versus the FY 2005

baseline the average time required to resolve

disputed issues in LHWCA program contested

cases, from an average of 254 days in FY 2005 to

250 days in FY 2006.

This indicator is intended to measure

OWCP’s success in resolving claim disputes

between injured workers and their employers and

insurers. Dispute resolution is one of the core

missions of the Longshore program. While not a

judge or a hearing officer, a Longshore claims

examiner contributes to the resolution of disputed

issues by acting as a mediator in informal

proceedings designed to help parties to a claim

reach amicable agreement and thereby avoid the

time and expense required by formal litigation. In

FY 2006, the district offices conducted 2,386

informal conferences that were designed to

establish the facts in each case, define the disputed

issues and the positions of the parties in respect to

those issues, and encourage their voluntary

resolution by means of agreement and/or

compromise.

To ensure that the goals of this indicator

remain ambitious, OWCP expanded the scope of

the Longshore program’s dispute resolution

measurement in FY 2006 to include two additional

dispute types, those of Last Responsible Employer

and Attorney Fees. New targets were developed

and adopted in FY 2005 for implementation from

FY 2006 through FY 2008. The goal is to reduce by

one percent each year for three years the average

time required to resolve disputes. In FY 2006,

disputed issues covered by this measure were

resolved in an average of 235 days, 15 days below

the target of 250 days. The program’s success was

in large part due to the efforts of the district office

staff to increase the proportion of disputes

resolved at the OWCP level without the need for

formal hearing.

OWCP continues to provide its claims

staff with additional training to improve

mediation skills and case management strategies

to shorten the time required to resolve disputes.

Performance Assessment

In response to the recommendations from the

2005 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), the

Longshore program continues to implement and

monitor a number of actions. An independent

study was completed in FY 2006 by a private

consulting firm. The study results included

recommendations for extensive upgrades to the

automated claims management system to

improve benefit tracking and allow benchmarking

against workers’ compensation programs in

various states. The program continues to evaluate

means to update its automated systems. A second

study was initiated in FY 2006 with the same

contractor to evaluate the overall effectiveness and

efficiency of the program. The results of this study,

including recommendations, are anticipated in

mid-FY 2007

Based on the PART evaluation and in

reaction to the submission of legislative reform

proposals by industry, the program began an

evaluation of the statute with the intention of

submitting any requested responses or technical

assistance. Although industry-submitted

legislation was not acted upon in FY 2006, future

industry proposals are anticipated.

DLHWC program performance, as

measured by GPRA outcome metrics, quarterly

reviews of district office performance, and

periodic accountability reviews, is excellent.

 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

DCCA LHWCA

*Current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical workers, U.S. city average, all

items), 1982-1984=100.

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

$0

LHWCA and DCCA

Special Funds’ Expenditures,

FY 1997-FY 2006

IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS*
34 35

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Claims Management

and Compliance Assistance

Activities

DBA injury and death claims from civilian

contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to

grow in FY 2006, with total claims increasing 17.2

percent over FY 2005 to 3,999, of which 247

involved the death of a worker. Between FY 2003

and FY 2006, a total of 12,915 DBA claims were

filed, including 777 death claims, of which 8,735

claims (696 deaths) originated in Iraq and

Afghanistan.

In response to the significant influx of

claims from the Middle East, the Longshore

program continued to hold educational seminars

and workshops, meetings with the contracting

agencies, and meetings and roundtable

discussions with insurance industry leaders.

These important outreach activities were designed

not only to enhance the understanding of the

insurance and contracting communities about the

coverage requirements, claim responsibilities, and

claim procedures under the DBA, but also to

address especially challenging issues such as Posttraumatic Stress Disorder claims. Many

enhancements were made to these program

activities as a result of ongoing efforts to collect

audience feedback.

As part of the ongoing process to upgrade

the Longshore program website, DLHWC in FY

2006 continued its efforts to update and otherwise

enhance the information available to the public,

including Compliance Assistance resources,

electronic form submission capabilities,

Frequently Asked Questions for Special Fund

recipients, detailed information about the DBA,

and legal briefs important to system participants.

Overall, FY 2006 was another very active

year for Longshore’s Compliance Assistance

endeavors. DLHWC district offices conducted

their annual survey of local coverage compliance

to identify any hot spots of uninsured employers

that needed intervention, and discovered none.

To heighten industry awareness of coverage and

procedural requirements of the LHWCA and of

vocational rehabilitation and dispute resolution

services offered by DLHWC district offices,

District Directors also maintained a vigorous

program of educational and compliance

assistance activities around the country. In FY

2006, they and their staff participated in training

workshops, roundtable meetings, insurance

industry seminars, as well as in the Annual

Longshore Conference held at the Loyola School

of Law in New Orleans.

The study of the Longshore Case

Management System (LCMS) by private

contractor SRA was initiated in January 2005, with

the final report and recommendations submitted

in January 2006. The LCMS was developed in the

early 1980’s as a tool for managing the internal

processes of the Longshore Division, but was not

intended for use as a program performance

monitoring or measurement system. The study

proposed three short-term and five long-term

enhancements to the system, including the

development of an interface with other OWCP

automated systems and developing a new,

customized program for Longshore’s claims

management functions. Other suggested changes

included improved data collection and reporting

capabilities, purchasing commercial case

management and document management

systems, and outsourcing system monitoring and

comparison capabilities to two private

organizations, the National Council on

Compensation Insurance and the Workers’

Compensation Research Institute. DLHWC is

evaluating the potential for implementing the

recommendations.

Security Requirements from

Authorized Insurance Carriers

In FY 2005, the Longshore program promulgated

and implemented regulations pertaining to the

security deposits required of insurance

companies. The first application of these new

rules took place in FY 2006, with no challenges,

complications, or complaints from the industry.

DLHWC continues to carefully monitor the

industry’s compliance with the regulations and

their impact on the financial stability of the system

and protection of the Longshore Special Fund.

No adjustments to the program’s implementation

are currently envisioned.

In FY 2006, it was determined that the

State of Washington’s new guarantee fund

warranted a reduction of security for claims

arising under policies governed by the fund.

Rehabilitation Reforms

During FY 2006 a new performance measure for

DLHWC’s district office Rehabilitation Specialists

was tested, using 2005 data as the baseline and a

goal of a one percent annual improvement. The

measure is the percentage increase in the number

of rehabilitation participants who successfully

complete approved rehabilitation plans and

return to suitable work within 12 months of the

completion of the plan. The new measure gives

the Rehabilitation Specialists recognition for their

work in recruiting claimants for the return-towork program, and for guiding claimants to the

successful completion of approved plans while

keeping the primary focus on the overall goal of a

successful job placement. The new measure was

successful in achieving both goals – providing a

measure of additional work by the staff and

reaching the improvement goal for the year.

Longshore will continue to refine this process, and

will make it a regular performance measure for

the program.
36 37

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Litigation

During FY 2006, the Supreme Court denied

certiorari in two cases. The courts of appeals

published eight decisions, and three district court

opinions were reported that discussed issues

arising under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act. Important points from these

cases, grouped by issue, are summarized below.

SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in General

Construction Co. v. Castro, leaving undisturbed the

Court of Appeals decision notwithstanding the

submission of amicus briefs in support of the

petition by four industry associations. 401 F.3d

963 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied 126 S.Ct. 1023 (2006).

The employer’s certiorari petition contended that

because the claimant’s injury was to a body part

falling within the 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(1)-(20)

schedule, the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding

an award for total disability benefits during the

period the claimant participated in vocational

rehabilitation conflicted with the Court’s holding

in Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449

U.S. 268 (1980). The Supreme Court also left intact

the Second Circuit’s decision that the LHWCA

covers a test engineer who drowned in Cayuga

Lake, New York while testing sonar equipment on

a research barge. Lockheed Martin Corp. ACE USA

v. Morganti, 412 F.3d 407 (2nd Cir. 2005), cert.

denied, 126 S.Ct. 2319 (2006). The Court of Appeals

had held inapplicable the data processing

exclusion from coverage found at 33 U.S.C. §

902(3)(A).

the employer did not appeal to the Board. The

court nevertheless held it lacked jurisdiction in

light of the plain language of 33 U.S.C. § 928(a)

requiring that the order be final.

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(b). The Sixth

Circuit joined the Fourth and Fifth Circuits in

requiring that in order to shift attorney fee liability

to the employer under 33 U.S.C. § 928(b), the

district director must: (1) hold an informal

conference; and (2) issue a written

recommendation calling for the payment of

compensation. In addition, the employer must

refuse to accept that recommendation and the

claimant must receive a compensation award for

an amount greater than that paid or tendered by

the employer. In Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v.

Director, OWCP (Bordeaux), 456 F.3d 616 (6th Cir.

2006), reh’g. pending, the employer voluntarily paid

compensation for temporary disability but

disputed the claim for permanent total disability

(PTD). Although the district director held an

informal conference, he made no substantive

recommendation on the PTD claim, noting only

that the parties were considering settlement. An

ALJ subsequently awarded PTD benefits. The

Sixth Circuit held that neither 33 U.S.C. §§ 928(a)

nor (b) applied and that therefore the employer

was not liable for claimant’s attorney’s fees.

COURTS OF APPEALS

Aggravation Rule and 33 U.S.C. § 920(a)

Presumption. The Seventh Circuit held that the

33 U.S.C. § 920(a) presumption of compensability

did not apply to determine which of two

potentially liable insurance carriers was

responsible to pay the claimant’s compensation.

Marinette Marine Corp. v. Director, OWCP (Baumler),

431 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2005). The claimant injured

his back in 1997 while the employer was insured

by one carrier and then became disabled due to

back problems in 2001 after the employer had

changed carriers. The ALJ found that the 2001

incident amounted to a new injury because

subsequent work aggravated the earlier injury

and therefore the second carrier was responsible.

The court rejected the second carrier’s argument

that the ALJ had erred by failing to apply the 33

U.S.C. § 920(a) presumption to the case because

the aggravation rule is to be applied without any

presumption.

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(a) - Finality of

Underlying Compensation Order for Purpose of

Enforcing Attorney Fee Award. The Ninth

Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination

that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to

entertain an action brought by a claimant’s

attorney seeking to enforce an award of attorney

fees for work performed before an ALJ because

the attorney’s own appeal of the award remained

pending before the Benefits Review Board.

Christensen v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc.,

430 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2005). The ALJ awarded

some but not all the fees requested and the

claimant’s attorney appealed that decision while

simultaneously seeking enforcement of the

portion that was awarded. The court conceded

the logic of the attorney’s argument that a portion

of the ALJ’s attorney fee award was final because

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(c) - Jurisdiction of

Court of Appeals to Award Attorney Fees for

Successful Opposition to Certiorari Petition. In

Stevedoring Services of America v. Price, 432 F.3d 1112

(9th Cir. 2006), the claimant’s attorney successfully

opposed the employer’s petition for certiorari and

then applied to the Supreme Court for fees.

Stevedoring Services of America v. Price, 432 F.3d 1112

(9th Cir. 2006), order denying certiorari, 544 U.S. 960

(2005). That motion was denied without prejudice

subject to his filing a fee petition with the Ninth

Circuit. 126 S. Ct. 1456 (2006). When the

claimant’s attorney filed in the court of appeals,

that court denied the fee application because the

work done to oppose the certiorari petition was

not performed before the Ninth Circuit. The court

also reasoned that the Supreme Court’s order did

not explicitly delegate jurisdiction to the Ninth

Circuit and the plain language of 33 U.S.C. § 928(c)

was too restrictive to establish jurisdiction. It

declined to follow the D.C. Circuit which had

construed an analogous order as establishing

jurisdiction. Hensley v. Washington Metropolitan

Area Transit Authority, 690 F.2d 1054 (D.C. Cir.

1982). Subsequently, after claimant’s renewed

motion, the Supreme Court expressly referred the

application for attorney’s fees and costs to the

Ninth Circuit for adjudication.
38 39

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Coverage: Status. The Ninth Circuit adopted the

Director’s interpretation of a “harbor worker” to

include workers directly involved in the

construction of a harbor facility, even if the

workers’ specific job duties are not maritime in

nature. Thus, such workers are covered under 33

U.S.C. § 902(3) because they are engaged in

maritime employment. Healy Tibbitts Builders, Inc.

v. Director, OWCP (Maumau), 444 F.3d 1095 (9th

Cir. 2006). Maumau, a heavy equipment operator,

was killed while excavating a utility line trench to

support submarine berthing wharves being

renovated in Pearl Harbor. The court found the

Director’s interpretation reasonable and consistent

with the LHWCA’s remedial purpose and with

prior precedent of the Board and other courts of

appeal. Observing that 33 U.S.C. § 902(3)(C)

excludes from coverage those marina employees

not engaged in construction, replacement, or

expansion of the marina, the Court reasoned that

this language supported the conclusion that those

who are engaged in the construction of uniquely

maritime structures, such as the submarine

berthing wharves here, are covered.

In M. Cutter Company, Inc., v. Carroll, 458 F.3d 991

(9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit upheld the

Board’s determination that an ALJ erred in

excusing the employer from paying all the care

necessitated by the injury. The ALJ had found that

although the injured worker required 24-hour

supervision, the employer was required to pay for

only part-time attendant care because the worker’s

wife could provide the remaining care “without

substantial disruption to her quality of life.”

Report of Earnings and “Disabled Employee”

Under 33 U.S.C. § 908(j). In Delaware River

Stevedores v. DiFidelto, 440 F.3d 615 (3rd Cir. 2006),

the Third Circuit addressed whether 33 U.S.C. §

908(j), which authorizes an employer to require a

disabled employee to report earnings semiannually, applies to employees who are not

receiving compensation. The employer argued

that a person became a “disabled employee” as

soon as the injury occurs. The Director contended

that for purposes of this section, a person is not a

“disabled employee” unless compensation is

being paid at the time the earnings request is

made. The Court held that the applicable

regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 702.285(a), was clear and

that although the statute was ambiguous with

regard to the meaning of “disabled employee,” its

legislative history supported the regulation. The

Court adopted the Director’s interpretation and

found that DiFidelto was not obliged to respond to

a request for earnings information that was made

when the employer was not paying

compensation.

Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1651, et seq. (DBA)

Exclusivity and Federal Preemption. In a case

involving the deaths of four security experts

working for U.S. military contractors in Iraq, the

Fourth Circuit issued a decision exploring both

federal court jurisdiction and the removal statute,

28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. In Blackwater Security

Consulting v. Richard P. Nolan, 460 F.3d 576 (4th Cir.

2006), the Fourth Circuit denied a request for a

writ of mandamus and also determined that it did

not have jurisdiction to review a district court

decision remanding wrongful death and fraud

claims case to the North Carolina courts.

Blackwater had attempted to remove the case to

federal court arguing that the decedents’ work

was covered by the DBA, which provided an

exclusive remedy, 42 U.S.C. § 1651(c), completely

preempted the state tort claims and limited the

decedents’ estates to workers’ compensation

benefits. The district court found that the DBA did

not completely preempt the tort claims and that it

therefore lacked jurisdiction. No determination

was made whether the DBA covered the deaths.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit observed that

ordinary preemption recognizes that some federal

laws may provide a substantive defense to a

plaintiff’s state law claims and that Blackwater

could assert its preemption argument in state

court. Blackwater has filed a petition for certiorari.

Employer Liability for Medical Care and

Supervision. 33 U.S.C. § 907(a) provides that an

employer shall furnish such medical care and

attendance as the nature of the injury requires.

DISTRICT COURT

Contempt under 33 U.S.C. § 927(b). After

considering facts certified to it by an ALJ pursuant

to 33 U.S.C. § 927(b), a district court determined

that it was required to hold a summary

evidentiary hearing and make its own

independent findings regarding the claimant’s

alleged contempt before the ALJ. In re D’Acquisto,

403 F.Supp.2d 389 (E.D. Pa. 2005). After the

claimant failed to attend a deposition and

undergo medical examinations in a LHWCA

proceeding, the ALJ granted the employer’s

request to certify facts to the district court for

appropriate sanctions under 33 U.S.C. § 927(b).

The court reasoned that the statutory LHWCA

language was identical to that in 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)

which had been interpreted to require a hearing

and court findings.

Enforcement under 33 U.S.C. § 921(d). A district

court that previously determined that it had

jurisdiction to enforce a compensation award to a

worker exposed to environmental pollutants in

Kazakhstan while performing DBA covered work,
40 41

Number of Employees

(FTE Staffing Used) 99 92

Administrative Expenditures

1

 $ 12.5 M $ 12.7 M

Lost-Time Injuries Reported 24,980 23,537

Total Compensation Paid

2

 $750.3 M $798.4 M

 Wage-Loss and Survivor Benefits $540.3 M $568.9 M

 Medical Benefits $210.0 M $229.5 M

Sources of Compensation Paid

 Insurance Companies

2

 $278.9 M $325.0 M

 Self-Insured Employers

2

 $322.5 M $325.7 M

 LHWCA Special Fund $134.6 M $133.3 M

 

 DCCA Special Fund $ 10.6 M $ 10.2 M

 DOL Appropriation $ 2.6 M $ 2.4 M

1Direct administrative costs to OWCP only; excludes DOL support costs of $15.0

million in FY 2005 and $15.0 million in FY 2006, respectively.

2

Figures are for CY 2004 and CY 2005, respectively. Note: Total compensation paid

does not equal the sum of the sources of compensation due to the different time

periods (CY v. FY) by which the various data are reported. For Special Fund

assessment billing purposes as required by section 44 of LHWCA, compensation

and medical benefit payments made by insurance carriers and self-insured

employers under the Acts are reported to DOL for the previous calendar year.

Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

declined to consider additional medical expenses

claimed by the worker until after the DOL had

first evaluated them. Cohen v. Pragma Corp., 445

F.Supp.2d 15 (D. D.C. 2006). The ALJ had ordered

the employer to pay the claimant future medical

expenses but the specific expenses sought by the

claimant before the district court had never been

evaluated by either the ALJ or the district director.

Jurisdiction: Exclusivity of Administrative

Jurisdiction over “all questions in respect of a

claim.” Under 33 U.S.C. § 919(a), an ALJ has

exclusive initial jurisdiction over “all questions in

respect of a claim” for benefits. The Director,

OWCP, intervened in and sought partial dismissal

of a district court declaratory judgment

proceeding brought by an insurer which sought a

determination that it was not liable under the

LHWCA after its insured’s employee suffered

devastating injuries in the course of employment.

Insurance Company of North America v. San Juan

Excursions, Inc. (Ralston), 2006 WL 2091059 (W.D.

Wash. 2006). The insurer, which also provided

general marine insurance for the employer,

attempted to rely on the employer’s breach of a

term in the marine policy known as a lay-up

warranty, contending that the breach voided the

insurer’s liability for the LHWCA benefits claim.

The court held that an ALJ has subject matter

jurisdiction over contractual disputes that are

integral to determining liability for compensation

and that here the insurance coverage dispute

determined whether the insurer was liable for the

employee’s compensation. The court determined

that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the issue of

liability for an LHWCA claim and granted the

Director’s motion for partial dismissal.

 FY 2005 FY 2006
Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act

Introduction

Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA or Act) in October 2000; Part B

became effective on July 31, 2001. Part B compensates current or former

employees (or their survivors) of the Department of Energy (DOE),

its predecessor agencies, and certain of its vendors, contractors and

43
44 45

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Administration

Executive Order 13179 designated four federal

agencies to administer the Act: DOL, the

Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS), DOE, and DOJ. As the lead agency, DOL

has primary responsibility for administering the

Act, including adjudication of claims for

compensation and payment of benefits for

conditions covered by Parts B and E. DOL is

focused on issuing quality decisions, and

providing clear and effective communication to

DEEOIC’s customers and stakeholders. The

EEOICPA has been and continues to be an

intergovernmental activity, involving the

coordinated efforts of the DOE, HHS, DOJ, as well

as DOL. The DEEOIC is proud of its contribution

to the overall progress that has been made in

implementing both parts of the Act.

HHS, through its National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),

establishes procedures for estimating radiation

doses, develops guidelines to determine the

probability that a cancer was caused by workplace

exposure to radiation, establishes regulations and

procedures for designation of new Special

Exposure Cohort (SEC) classes, and carries out the

actual dose reconstruction for cases referred by

DOL. HHS also provides the Advisory Board on

Radiation and Worker Health with administrative

services and other necessary support. The Board

advises HHS on the scientific validity and quality

of dose reconstruction efforts, and receives and

provides recommendations on petitions

submitted by classes of employees for inclusion as

members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

Under the Act, Congress established the

SEC to allow eligible claims to be compensated

without the completion of a radiation dose

reconstruction or determination of the probability

of causation. To qualify for compensation under

the SEC, a covered employee must have at least

one of twenty-two "specified cancers" and have

worked for a specified period of time at an SEC

facility. The Act designated four sites (the three

gaseous diffusion plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee;

Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio; and

an underground nuclear test site on Amchitka

Island, Alaska) as belonging to the SEC. As of

September 30, 2006, HHS had designated

additional facilities, for certain workers and

specified timeframes, as part of the SEC,

including: Mallinckrodt Chemical Works,

Destrehan Street Facility, St. Louis, Missouri; the

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Burlington, Iowa

(two classes); the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge,

Tennessee; and five new classes added to the SEC

in FY 2006. These FY 2006 SEC additions included

the Ames Laboratory, Ames, Iowa; the Linde

Ceramics Plant, Tonawanda, New York; the

Nevada Test Site, Mercury, Nevada; the Pacific

Proving Grounds, Marshall Islands; and the Oak

Ridge Institute for Nuclear Studies, Oak Ridge,

Tennessee. An additional class of employees at

the Mallinckrodt Chemical Plant also became

effective during FY 2006.

subcontractors, who were diagnosed with a radiogenic cancer, chronic beryllium

disease, beryllium sensitivity, or chronic silicosis as a result of exposure to radiation,

beryllium, or silica while employed at covered facilities. The EEOICPA also provides

compensation to individuals (or their eligible survivors) awarded benefits by the

Department of Justice (DOJ) under Section 5 of the Radiation Exposure

Compensation Act (RECA).

Part E (effective October 28, 2004) replaced the former Part D of the EEOICPA.

Part E of the Act compensates DOE contractor/subcontractor employees, eligible

survivors of such employees, and uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters as

defined by RECA Section 5.

From the program’s inception to the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, the Division

of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) provided more

than 21,000 employees or their families with compensation totaling more than $2.1

billion under both Parts B and E of the Act and paid more than $123 million for

medical expenses associated with the treatment of accepted medical conditions. Part

B compensation has totaled more than $1.6 billion (since 2001) while Part E

compensation has exceeded $473 million (since 2005).

In FY 2006 alone, more than 5,000 employees or their families received Part B

compensation of $462.2 million. In addition, more than 2,300 employees or their

families received Part E compensation of $280.3 million. A total of $41.7 million was

paid in covered medical benefits in FY 2006 under both Parts B and E of the Act.
46 47

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

DOE provides DOL and HHS with

relevant information on worker exposures,

including access to restricted data and verification

of covered employment.

DOJ notifies beneficiaries who have

received an award of benefits under RECA

Section 5 of their possible EEOICPA eligibility and

provides RECA claimants with information

required by DOL to complete the claim

development process.

DEEOIC continued to receive a

substantial number of new claims in FY 2006. In

FY 2006 alone, DOL created a total of 5,472 new

case files (7,908 claims) for living or deceased

employees under Part B and 10,354 new cases

(16,556 claims) under Part E. Each case represents

an employee whose illness is the basis for a claim.

One case may have multiple survivor claims.

The DEEOIC program’s Final

Adjudication Branch (FAB) maintains its central

office in Washington, D.C., with offices collocated

with each district office. The FAB provided

reviews of each recommended decision made by

the district offices to ensure that the Act’s

requirements, program policy, and procedures

were followed. FAB also considered challenges

brought forth by claimants through reviews of the

written record or oral hearings. During FY 2006,

FAB scheduled and conducted 663 oral hearings

at locations near claimants, issuing final decisions

regarding the claims and specific claimant

challenges. In addition, claimants challenge FAB’s

final decisions through reconsideration and

reopening processes. Once claimants exhaust

their administrative remedies under the Act, they

may pursue judicial review at the district

court level.

Benefits under the Act

While Parts B and E of the EEOICPA are separate

programs with unique criteria for establishing

positive claims, for greater efficiency, simplicity,

and speed, in FY 2006 DEEOIC began to

adjudicate all claims for benefits under Parts B and

E as a unified claim. Where possible, decisions are

issued that address both Parts B and E

simultaneously. However, partial decisions may

also be issued in cases where benefits under some

provisions can be awarded, but claims under

other provisions require further development.

Workers or their survivors may qualify for both

Part B and Part E benefits.

Part B. To qualify for benefits under Part B of the

Act, an employee must have worked for DOE or a

DOE contractor or subcontractor during a covered

time period at a DOE facility, or have worked for a

private company designated as a covered Atomic

Weapons Employer (AWE) or beryllium vendor.

The worker must have developed cancer, chronic

beryllium disease, beryllium sensitivity, or chronic

silicosis (for individuals who worked in Nevada

and Alaskan nuclear test tunnels) due to

exposures at the covered work site. A covered

employee who qualifies for benefits under Part B

may receive a one-time lump-sum payment of

$150,000 plus medical expenses related to his or

her accepted, covered condition. Survivors of

these workers may also be eligible for a lump-sum

compensation payment. Part B also provides for

payment of $50,000 to individuals (or their eligible

survivors) who received an award from DOJ

under Section 5 of the RECA, as well as related

medical expenses.

There are several different types of claims

under Part B of the Act. Claims for the $50,000

RECA supplement are the least complex,

involving verification by DOJ that a RECA award

has been made, and documentation of the identity

of the claimant (including survivor relationship).

For all claims, employment and illness

documentation is developed by claims staff and

evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the

EEOICPA and relevant regulations and

procedures. DOL district offices then issue

recommended decisions to claimants.

For cases involving claimed cancers that

are not covered by SEC provisions (that is, either

cancers incurred at a non-SEC facility, a nonspecified cancer incurred at an SEC facility, or an

employee who did not have sufficient

employment duration to qualify for the SEC

designation), there is an intervening step in the

process to determine causation called “dose

reconstruction.” In these instances, once DOL

determines that a worker was a covered employee

and that he or she had a diagnosis of cancer, the

case is referred to NIOSH so that the individual’s

radiation dose can be estimated. After NIOSH

completes the dose reconstruction and calculates a

dose estimate for the worker, DOL takes this

estimate and applies the methodology

promulgated by HHS in its probability of

causation regulation to determine if the statutory

causality test is met. The standard is met if the

cancer was “at least as likely as not” related to

covered employment, as indicated by a

determination of at least 50 percent probability.

DOL’s district office then issues a recommended

decision on eligibility for EEOICPA benefits. In FY

2006, the district offices referred 3,759 Part B cases

to NIOSH for dose reconstruction.

Part E. EEOICPA’s Part E establishes a system of

federal payments for employees of DOE

contractors and subcontractors (or their eligible

survivors) for illnesses determined to have

resulted from exposure to toxic substances at a

DOE facility. Uranium miners, millers, and ore

transporters as defined by Section 5 of the RECA

may also receive Part E benefits. Benefits are

provided for any illness once it is determined that

the illness was at least as likely as not that

exposure to a toxic substance was a significant

factor in causing, contributing to, or aggravating

the illness or death of an employee. Additionally,

the Act provides that any determination made

under Part B to award benefits (including RECA

Section 5 claims), as well as any positive finding

by a physician panel under Part D that was

accepted by DOE, is an automatic acceptance

under Part E for causation of the illness. The

maximum benefit under Part E is $250,000 for all

claims relating to any individual employee.

Unlike Part B, which compensates

employees with a uniform lump-sum payment of

$150,000 for certain occupational illnesses,

regardless of how severe or debilitating that illness

is, Part E compensates covered employees for the

varying percentage of impairment of the whole

person that is related to a covered illness.

Impairments included in ratings are those that
48 49

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

have reached maximum medical improvement

(MMI), i.e., they are well-stabilized and unlikely to

improve substantially with or without medical

treatment. MMI is not required if an illness is in a

terminal or progressive stage. The Act specifically

requires that impairment be determined in

accordance with the American Medical

Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent

Impairment (AMA’s Guides). Eligible employees

receive $2,500 for each percentage point of

impairment found to be attributable to a covered

illness under Part E.

Under Part E, covered employees may

also be eligible to receive compensation for wage

loss. Wage loss is based on each qualifying year

(prior to normal Social Security Administration

retirement age) in which, as a result of the covered

illness, an employee’s earnings fell a specific

percentage below his or her average annual

earnings for the 36-month period prior to

suffering wage loss (not including periods of

unemployment). The Act provides that covered,

eligible employees may receive $15,000 for any

year in which they made less than 50 percent of

their pre-disability average annual wage, as a

result of a covered illness, and $10,000 for any year

in which they made more than 50 percent but less

than 75 percent of that average annual wage.

Medical benefits for the covered condition are also

payable, in addition to compensation, and are not

limited by the $250,000 cap.

Part E survivor benefits include a basic

lump sum of $125,000 where it is established that

the employee was exposed to a toxic substance at

a DOE facility and that the exposure caused,

contributed to, or aggravated the death of the

employee. Part E also provides $25,000 in

additional benefits to eligible survivors, if the

deceased employee had, as of his or her normal

retirement age under the Social Security Act, at

least ten aggregate calendar years of wage loss of

at least 50 percent of his or her average annual

wage. If an employee had twenty or more such

years, the additional amount paid to an eligible

survivor may increase to $50,000. The maximum

Part E compensation benefit for a survivor is

$175,000.

Recommended Decisions and Final

Decisions. The DEEOIC district offices issue

recommended decisions (recommending either

acceptance or denial of claims) to claimants.

Claimants may agree with the recommended

decision, or may object and request either a review

of the written record or an oral hearing. In either

case, FAB reviews the recommended decision and

any evidence/testimony submitted by the

claimant and issues a final decision, either

awarding or denying benefits. FAB may also

remand a decision to the district office if further

development of the case is necessary. Claimants

can appeal a Final Decision to the U.S.

District Courts.

Due to the unusual (and at times

confusing) eligibility boundaries established by

Congress for the Part B and Part E programs,

many applications have been received that do not

meet the basic criteria of the EEOICPA (i.e., noncovered applications). Starting in FY 2006, the

non-covered applications were separated out

when reporting statistical counts to provide a

more accurate picture of the Program. In FY 2006,

DEEOIC district offices issued 13,207 claim-level

recommended decisions of covered applications

under Part B, and 16,458 claim-level

recommended decisions of covered applications

under Part E. The FAB issued 12,169 claim-level

final decisions of covered applications under Part

B, and 9,777 claim-level final decisions of covered

applications under Part E, falling in line with the

operational plan goals put in place for the issuance

of final agency decisions for Part B and Part E

claims. Under Part B, 6,103 claims (50.2 percent)

received approval, while 6,066 (49.8 percent) were

denied. Part B claim denials can be attributed to

many factors, e.g., there was an ineligible survivor,

or there was insufficient causal connection

between the claimed employment, radiation

exposure, and the condition or disease claimed.

Under Part E, 6,357 claims (65.0 percent) received

approval, while 3,420 (35.0 percent) were denied.

The majority of the denials were based upon

ineligible survivorship. Under Part E, in most

instances an adult child of a deceased worker is

ineligible for benefits under the statutory

definition of a survivor. DOL is required to

implement the statute as it is written, and such

determinations are made based upon the facts of

the case as they relate to the statutory

requirements.

Funding

In FY 2006, DOL spent $44.0 million under Part B

and $51.8 million under Part E to administer

EEOICPA. These funds supported 251 full-time

equivalent (FTE) staff for Part B and 188 FTE for

Part E.

DOL funding covered direct and indirect

expenses to administer the Washington, D.C.

National Office; five Final Adjudication Branch

Offices; four DEEOIC District Offices in Seattle,

Washington; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado;

and Jacksonville, Florida; and twelve Resource

Centers. (In FY 2006, DEEOIC closed the Alaska

Resource Center, bringing the total of centers to 11

for a portion of the fiscal year). A private

contractor processed medical bills to reduce

overhead and to increase program efficiency.

Under Part B in FY 2006, additional funding in the

amount of $59.8 million was passed through DOL

to support activities at the Department of Health

and Human Services’ NIOSH. The NIOSH

portion included $4.5 million in funds for the

radiation dose reconstruction process and support

of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker

Health. Under Part E, $0.5 million in additional

funds were used to support the appointment of an

Ombudsman position.
50 51

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Government Performance

Results Act

DOL is committed to measuring its outcomes

and maintaining accountability for achieving the

fundamental goals of the Energy Employees

Occupational Illness Compensation Program

(EEOICP). High performance standards, focusing

on moving EEOICP claims rapidly through the

initial and secondary adjudication stages, were

established.

DEEOIC’s three indicators achieved

under DOL’s GPRA goal to “minimize the

human, social, and financial impact of workrelated injuries for workers and their families”

were as follows:

For initial processing of Part B and Part E claims

for benefits, DOL’s FY 2006 goal was to complete

initial processing in 50 percent of the cases within

180 days. Through the efforts of the four district

offices, initial processing was completed within

180 days for 72 percent of the claims, exceeding

the 50 percent goal.

In the processing of Part B and Part E final

decisions through the efforts of FAB, 89 percent of

final decisions in FY 2006 were completed within

the program standards, also in excess of the goal

of 80 percent.

DOL set an important goal to process to an initial

determination 75 percent of the 25,000 cases

inherited from DOE by the end of FY 2006. DOL

accomplished that goal one month in advance of

the target date; 17,968 cases, or 113.5 percent of the

office goal, had received an initial determination.

Services to Claimants

From the Act’s inception, DEEOIC’s network of

Resource Centers (RCs) at major DOE sites has

provided in-person and telephone-based

assistance to current and former DOE employees,

contractors and subcontractors, uranium workers,

and surviving family members who sought to file

claims under the Act. The RCs were located near

large nuclear weapon production and testing

facilities in order to serve locations with the

highest claimant populations. Staff members at

the RCs helped claimants complete the necessary

claim forms, assisted claimants in gathering the

documentation necessary to support their claims,

and forwarded claim forms and associated

documentation to the appropriate District Offices

in Cleveland, Denver, Jacksonville, and Seattle.

The RCs also developed and maintained working

relationships with local unions, medical providers,

and other groups to spread the DEEOIC program

message to workers, survivors of workers, and

retirees.

DOL assumed sole management of the

RCs in October 2004, after Congress replaced Part

D of the Act with Part E and transferred over

25,000 cases to DOL. DEEOIC immediately

sought to provide a cohesive strategy for its RCs

that offered the right mix and distribution of

human resources to best support the EEOICPA

mission. In FY 2005, the agency’s Most Efficient

Organization (MEO) initiative designated that

RCs assume additional responsibilities related to

initial employment verification and occupational

history development for Part E claims. In FY 2006,

DEEOIC closed the Alaska RC due to changes

within DOE’s Medical Surveillance Program, and

transferred all claims and services to the Richland,

Washington RC. Also in FY 2006, a new RC

opened in Amherst, New York, in response to the

needs of workers and their families from several

facilities in Western New York. Following an open

re-competition process, in September 2006 a new

contractor began operation and management of

DEEOIC’s 11 RCs. The new contractor hired the

incumbent resource center staff who continued to

provide quality customer service to EEOICPA

claimants.

DOL had selected RC facilities that

provided accessibility for claimants, comfort,

privacy/confidentiality in the design of office

space, private offices for caseworkers and

managers, reception areas, conference facilities as

sites for oral hearings, secure file areas, and

adequate storage. The Resource Center contractor

now has 59 employees at 11 sites located in

Livermore, California; Westminster, Colorado;

Idaho Falls, Idaho; Paducah, Kentucky; Las Vegas,

Nevada; Espanola, New Mexico; Amherst, New

York; Portsmouth, Ohio; North Augusta, South

Carolina; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Richland,

Washington.

Under DOL’s MEO initiative, the RCs

continued to carry out responsibilities related to

initial employment verification and Part E

occupational history development. During FY

2006, RCs processed 7,702 initial employment

verification requests and conducted 8,361

occupational history interviews.

In FY 2006, DEEOIC hosted 11 town

hall meetings in nine locations throughout

the country to help educate the public about the

Part E program. In addition to the town hall

meetings, DEEOIC representatives participated

in and met with concerned claimant and

claimant advocacy groups regarding the

EEOICP. Other outreach activities included

mailings, newspaper articles and advertisements, and meetings with congressional staffers

to provide program information.

DEEOIC’s Web site continued to be

maintained with weekly content updates. The

web site allowed claimants to access brochures,

complete forms, and file claims electronically.

The site also offered information about the

statute and regulations governing Part B and

Part E; the locations and times of town hall

meetings; district office and resource center

locations and contact numbers; press releases;

medical provider enrollment information;
53

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

52

current claims processing and payments statistics,

at the national, state, and facility levels; links to

DOE, DOJ, and NIOSH websites; and toll-free

numbers where additional information and

assistance could be obtained. EEOICPA

regulations, a searchable database of DEEOIC

final decisions, a link to provide Part E

information that includes the EEOICPA Part E

procedure manual, and DEEOIC and NIOSH

weekly Web statistics continue to be found on the

web site. During FY 2006, DEEOIC also posted

pertinent bulletins to its EEOICP News section on

the program’s home page.

While DEEOIC issued seven policy

bulletins in FY 2005 primarily to clarify the

administration of Part E, it issued 16 policy

bulletins in FY 2006 to clarify administration of

both parts of the program.

Under the Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 42 U.S.C. §

7385s-15, signed into law on October 28, 2004, an

Office of the Ombudsman was created for a

period of three years, to provide information to

claimants, potential claimants, and other

interested parties on the benefits available under

EEOICPA and how to obtain those benefits. The

Office of the Ombudsman, independent from

OWCP, reports annually to Congress concerning

complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance

received during the calendar year covered by the

report. In FY 2006, the Ombudsman’s 2005

Annual Report was made available through a link

from DEEOIC’s Web site, and a policy analyst was

assigned to work directly with the Ombudsman’s

office to promptly resolve any issues and

concerns.

Central Medical Bill Processing

The OWCP bill processing vendor provided a

high level of service to eligible employees and

their medical providers in FY 2006. In addition,

DEEOIC realized a $6.3 million reduction in costs

during the year due to further system improvements in editing bills.

Timely and accurate medical bill

processing is a critical element in administration

of the EEOICPA. In FY 2006, pharmacy bill

processing was enhanced to ensure that the

therapeutic class of drugs and medications is

related or relevant to claimants’ accepted

conditions for compensation and benefits. Eightyeight new District Medical Consultants were

enrolled and associated “Prompt Pay Bills” were

processed in an average of 10 days.

By the end of FY 2006, the vendor had

processed 120,959 EEOICPA bills and handled

24,972 telephone calls. Authorizations for medical

treatment were processed in an average of one

workday and nearly 99 percent of bills were

processed within 28 days. Enrollment of 1,042

new providers brought the total of enrolled

providers to 94,355.

Database Systems

DEEOIC’s Branch of Automated Data Processing

Systems (BAS) is responsible for providing

DEEOIC’s internal and external customers an

entire array of secure and reliable computer

services and support. A major accomplishment

for DEEOIC/BAS was a comprehensive Energy

Case Management System (ECMS) data

migration and system rebuild to increase

performance and reliability. The migration and

rebuild included all ECMS components: ECMS B,

ECMS E, and ECMS Reports, as well as all web,

statistical and management workload reports.

This year-long effort culminated in a seamless

cutover to the new production environment

on October 10, 2006.

DEEOIC/BAS also laid the groundwork

in FY 2006 for its Unified Energy Case Management System (UECMS) Project by defining the

conceptual vision and documenting extensive

requirements that will integrate and expand

legacy ECMS components to accommodate

changing business needs. UECMS is planned for

deployment in FY 2009. UECMS Project

accomplishments in FY 2006: monthly Earned

Value Management reporting to the Office of

Management and Budget that maintained the

required cost and schedule variance threshold

of plus or minus 10 percent, and publication of

a Request for Proposals soliciting vendors to

design and build the new Unified ECMS.

Also in FY 2006, DEEOIC enhanced its

database of “site exposure matricies” to help

claims examiners determine the types of

chemicals and toxic substances that existed at the

major DOE facilities, easing claimants’ evidentiary

burdens and speeding the claims process. The

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) project conducted

the pilot record review at Rocky Flats in February

2006. Overall, record reviews were conducted at

14 major DOE sites during FY 2006. In

conjunction with the record review project, 35

roundtable meetings were held with current and

former DOE workers. Onsite record reviews and

roundtable meetings yielded information

regarding 1,250 toxic substances. In addition,

information obtained from DOE at the inception

of the project (Former Worker Program data, Tiger

Team assessments, Industrial Hygiene reports)

was reviewed and evaluated by the SEM team

and placed into the database. Exposure

information regarding 20 major DOE sites was

housed in SEM by the end of FY 2006. In addition,

the SEM team obtained and evaluated exposure

data for 4,071 uranium mines and 48 uranium mills

covered under RECA.

In conjunction with exposure development,

the SEM project began working to improve

exposure and medical data available in the HazMap website database. Haz-Map is a database

housed by the National Library of Medicine that

contains a wide array of information regarding

occupational exposure to hazardous agents. DOL

contracted with the author of Haz-Map to evaluate

exposure information obtained during covered

facility document reviews and to upload the

author’s analysis into Haz-Map. This work for the

SEM project will assist DOL in developing and

adjudicating claims filed under Part E of EEOICPA.

Regulatory Activities

On June 8, 2005, DOL published an Interim

Final Rule (IFR) governing its responsibilities under

EEOICPA. 70 Fed. Reg. 33,590 (2005). The

publication of the IFR was compelled by the major

amendments to EEOICPA Congress enacted in

2004. DOL invited interested parties to submit

written comments and advice within 60 days of

publication of the IFR. In response, DOL received

533 timely comments, almost all of which addressed

the issue of eligibility for survivor benefits under

Part E of EEOICPA. DOL addressed all the issues

raised by these comments in the Proposed Final

Rule which it forwarded to the Office of

Management and Budget on June 23, 2006.
Number of Employees (FTE staffing Used) 245 251 27

Administrative Expenditures2 $ 60.5 M $ 44.0 M $ 34.7 M

Claims Created 9,972 7,908 39,830

Recommended Decisions (Total Claims) 13,668 14,191 2,792

 Covered Applications3 N/A 13,207 N/A

Final Decisions (Claims) 11,709 13,199 2,105

 Covered Applications3 N/A 12,169 N/A

Number of Claims Approved (Final) 4,319 6,103 2,042

Total Lump Sum Compensation Payments4 $325.8 M $462.2 M $194.3 M

Number of Medical Bill Payments 70,251 97,103 328

Total Medical Payments5 $ 32.8 M $ 40.8 M $ 0.02 M

Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act

Appendix

A. FECA Tables A1–A4

B. Black Lung Tables B1–B6

C. LHWCA Tables C1–C5

D. EEOICPA Tables D1–D5

Note: Unless otherwise stated, the financial information in the following appendix tables may differ from what

is reported in the Department of Labor’s Consolidated Financial Statement. These differences are due to accrual

versus cash basis financial reporting requirements and adjustments made during statement compilation.

56

60

66

71

55

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

54

 188

 $ 51.8 M

16,556

29,346

16,458

20,592

9,777

6,357

 $ 280.3 M

585

 $ 0.8 M

1

 Part E became effective during FY 2005 (October 28, 2004).

2

 Includes Department of Labor expenditures only; Part B excludes funds apportioned to the Department of Health and Human

Services for that agency’s responsibilities under EEOICPA ($47.3 million in FY 2005 and $59.8 million in FY 2006, respectively),

while Part E excludes funding for the Ombudsman office ($0.2 million in FY 2005 and $0.5 million in FY 2006, respectively).

3

 FY 2006 is the first year that covered versus non-covered applications were tracked.

4

 Excludes payments made by DOL for Department of Justice (DOJ) Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Section 5

claims. DOL serves as a pass through and utilizes the compensation fund established under EEOICPA for DOJ’s payments of

$100,000 to qualifying Section 5 RECA claimants as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 7384u(d). These payments totaled $57.4

million in FY 2005 and $78.8 million in FY 2006, respectively.

5

 Part B medical payments represent payments made for cases accepted under both Part B and Part E. Part E medical

payments represent payments made for Part E only.

 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2005 FY 2006

 Part B Part E1
56 57

 Fiscal Year

Federal Employees' Compensation Rolls

FY 1997—FY 2006

(Cases at End-of-Year)

Table A1

1997

55,484

49,319

6,165

1998

56,159

50,105

6,054

1999

54,897

48,957

5,940

2000

54,709

48,870

5,839

2001

56,133

50,409

5,724

2002

56,751

51,092

5,659

2003

58,621

53,099

5,522

2004

57,827

52,377

5,450

2005

60,709

55,257

5,452

2006

55,433

49,910

5,523

Roll Type

Total Periodic Roll

 Long-Term Disability

 Death

 Fiscal Year

Federal Employees' Compensation Program

Summary of Claims Activity

FY 1997—FY 2006

Table A2

Claim Activity

Incoming Cases

Cases Created

 Traumatic

 No Lost Time

 Lost Time

 Occupational Disease

 Fatal Cases

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated

Hearings and Review

Total Requests for Hearing

Total Hearing Dispositions

1997

173,319

146,489

78,642

67,847

26,680

150

19,181

7,642

7,525

1998

165,135

138,975

75,321

63,654

25,954

206

19,315

7,496

8,087

1999

166,544

140,383

83,472

56,911

25,999

162

19,759

7,164

7,926

2000

174,471

145,915

91,620

54,295

28,406

150

21,899

6,992

7,418

2001

165,915

137,877

86,402

51,475

27,869

169

23,386

6,875

6,599

2002

158,118

132,250

80,439

51,811

25,739

129

23,193

6,820

6,272

2003

168,174

142,325

84,368

57,957

25,747

102

24,245

6,751

6,743

2004

162,965

138,521

80,018

58,503

24,320

124

24,189

8,132

7,682

2005

151,690

129,427

74,071

55,356

22,114

149

21,455

6,757

6,961

2006

139,874

119,082

67,127

51,955

20,592

200

19,819

6,241

7,424

FECA Tables A1 — A2
58 59

 Fiscal Year

Federal Employees' Compensation Program Obligations

FY 1997—FY 2006

($ thousands)

Table A3

1997

$1,968,256

1,887,363

1,314,603

450,206

122,554

80,893

67,303

1998

$2,024,494

1,944,259

1,343,879

476,167

124,213

80,235

69,207

1999

$2,076,475

1,989,050

1,370,206

492,835

126,009

87,425

67,567

2000

$2,170,247

2,078,715

1,403,154

548,596

126,965

91,532

70,634

2001

$2,308,595

2,199,276

1,453,740

617,414

128,122

109,319

78,971

2002

$2,418,364

2,307,942

1,509,275

667,797

130,870

110,422

81,210

2003

$2,475,108

2,345,472

1,556,845

658,121

130,506

129,636

86,358

2004

$2,568,390

2,434,609

1,600,501

703,571

130,537

133,781

86,253

2005

$2,602,815

2,476,479

1,664,405

672,006

140,068

126,336

86,811

2006

$2,553,930

2,418,796

1,621,357

668,205

129,234

135,134

88,435

Type of

Obligation

Total

Obligations

 Total Benefits

 Compensation

 Benefits

 Medical

 Benefits

 Survivor

 Benefits

 Total

 Administrative

 Expenditures

 Salaries and

 Expenses

 Chargeback Year1

Federal Employees' Compensation Program Chargeback Costs,

by Major Federal Agency

CBY 1997—CBY 2006

($ thousands)

Table A4

1997

$1,833,926

551,142

247,488

159,781

136,607

N/A

117,242

89,369

63,878

59,230

61,360

347,829

1998

$1,887,980

577,159

243,938

162,152

140,118

N/A

124,302

95,823

67,875

60,348

62,729

353,536

1999

$1,908,256

594,503

240,492

163,127

137,865

N/A

123,349

97,155

76,319

59,851

63,563

352,033

2000

$2,024,634

666,310

241,585

166,989

143,221

N/A

128,134

96,936

83,873

64,882

64,797

367,907

2001

$2,129,097

720,518

246,881

169,219

145,909

N/A

134,106

99,556

91,197

66,750

64,761

390,201

2002

$2,219,448

785,199

248,250

174,832

151,612

N/A

132,538

101,716

95,620

69,563

63,888

396,230

2003

$2,323,288

846,876

245,461

181,298

157,315

83,975

135,509

94,682

66,131

72,312

65,429

374,299

2004

$2,339,782

852,945

245,145

177,250

155,391

121,089

129,229

92,659

74,011

69,245

63,816

359,003

2005

$2,334,194

840,141

237,791

174,660

156,170

138,342

124,516

92,687

80,090

68,681

62,996

358,120

2006

$2,440,711

884,078

244,318

180,248

164,091

156,734

126,663

92,830

89,156

70,185

65,460

366,948

Federal Agency

Total Costs

 U.S. Postal

 Service

 Department

 of the Navy

 Department

 of the Army

 Department of

 Veterans Affairs

 Department of

 Homeland Security

 Department

 of the Air Force

 Department of

 Transportation

 Department

 of Justice

 Department

 of Agriculture

 Department

 of Defense

 All Other

 Agencies

1

 A year for chargeback purposes is from July 1 through June 30. 

FECA Tables A3 — A4

 Fair Share 13,590 11,028 19,858 20,898 30,348 29,212 43,278 47,528 39,525 46,699
60 61

Part C Black Lung Claims Adjudication

at the Initial Level

FY 2006

Table B1

Distribution of Part C

Black Lung Claims and Disbursements, by State

FY 2006

Table B2

1

 All filings since July 1, 1973, including terminated and nonapproved claims.

2

 Active Medical Benefits Only (MBO) claims as of 9/30/06.

3

 Active claims in payment status, excluding MBO claims, as of 9/30/06.

4

 Disbursements of income and medical benefits for all claims, including

claims paid by the Trust Fund and claims in interim pay status.

Note: Data in column no. 1 may not be consistent with changes from previous years

due to a change in computer systems.

Black Lung Tables B1 — B2

Type of Claim

Trust Fund

 Approved

 Denied

Responsible Operator

 Approved

 Denied

Total Findings 

 Total Approved

 Total Denied

1

 PDO is “Proposed Decision and Order”.

Total Claims

Received1

33,755

149

2,035

3,819

6,459

7,025

1,000

771

284

11,872

1,641

16

247

31,244

17,836

5,134

2,172

91,091

349

44

6,644

237

10,478

146

363

4,631

854

128

424

27

4,290

2,394

4,014

3,446

159

53,621

3,784

628

136,475

40

917

50

20,957

1,717

4,100

49

43,363

1,590

110,329

449

2,602

449

636,298

MBO

Claims2

62

0

5

14

12

18

2

2

0

80

9

0

0

64

41

5

1

882

1

0

22

0

17

0

2

5

2

0

1

0

11

3

10

28

0

145

15

0

743

0

9

0

145

4

17

0

511

3

948

1

1

1

3,842

In Payment

3

977

9

136

185

264

438

80

60

15

819

169

1

17

1,212

787

247

65

4,925

18

3

376

21

429

8

29

197

36

8

40

7

278

121

212

335

6

2,808

154

34

10,721

3

121

6

1,098

125

274

6

3,584

76

7,730

35

156

20

39,481

Total Benefits

($ 000)

4

$7,599

70

1,058

1,439

2,053

3,407

622

467

117

6,370

1,314

8

132

9,426

6,121

1,921

506

38,305

140

23

2,924

163

3,337

62

226

1,532

280

62

311

54

2,162

941

1,649

2,605

47

21,839

1,198

264

83,384

23

941

47

8,540

972

2,131

47

27,875

591

60,121

272

1,213

156

$307,067

State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

All Other

Total

PDO’s Issued1

782

118

664

3,966

521

3,445

4,748

639

4,109

Approval Rate

15.09%

13.14%

13.46%
62 63

 Number of Beneficiaries2

Part C Black Lung Claims, by Class of Beneficiary

FY 1997—FY 20061

Table B3

1997

29,839

42,468

1,444

73,751

24,599

1,491

511

26,601

100,352

1998

27,340

41,585

1,476

70,401

22,158

1,417

512

24,087

94,488

1999

24,838

40,517

1,508

66,863

19,953

1,384

516

21,853

88,716

2000

22,568

39,053

1,497

63,118

17,978

1,306

508

19,792

82,910

2001

18,248

35,660

1,467

55,375

13,924

1,123

108

15,155

70,530

2002

16,395

34,236

1,221

51,852

12,432

1,077

386

13,895

65,747

2003

14,773

32,615

1,238

48,626

11,131

1,052

353

12,536

61,162

2004

13,398

30,810

1,247

45,455

10,020

1,006

238

11,264

56,719

2005

12,012

29,110

1,248

42,370

9,004

944

213

10,161

52,531

2006

10,857

27,366

1,258

39,481

8,088

874

146

9,108

48,589

Class of Beneficiary

Primary Beneficiaries:

 Miners

 Widows

 Others

Total Primary Beneficiaries

Dependents of Primary

Beneficiaries:

 Dependents of Miners

 Dependents of Widows

 Dependents of Others

Total Dependents

Total, All Beneficiaries

1

 As of September 30 of each year.

2

 Active claims, including those paid by a RMO, cases paid by the Trust Fund, cases

in interim pay status, cases that are being offset due to concurrent Federal or state

benefits, and cases that have been temporarily suspended. Does not include

MBO beneficiaries.

 Fiscal Year

Department of Labor Part C Black Lung Benefits Program Obligations

FY 1997—FY 2006

($ thousands)

Table B4

1997

$1,004,672

487,910

392,546

95,363

46,128

470,635

375,000

$5,486,557

1998

$999,822

459,061

376,985

82,076

46,035

494,726

370,000

$5,856,557

1999

$1,005,246

439,442

363,871

75,571

50,788

515,016

402,000

$6,258,557

2000

$1,013,593

422,656

350,266

72,390

49,820

541,117

490,000

$6,748,557

2001

$1,016,994

396,928

336,813

60,116

52,252

567,814

505,000

$7,253,557

2002

$1,034,096

384,234

320,039

64,196

54,273

595,589

465,000

$7,718,557

2003

$1,046,303

370,389

307,371

63,018

55,332

620,582

525,000

$8,243,557

2004

$1,053,246

346,864

292,555

54,309

55,803

650,579

497,000

$8,740,557

2005

$1,061,698

329,933

279,965

49,968

56,872

674,894

446,000

$9,186,557

2006

$1,060,006

307,067

265,365

41,702

57,975

694,964

445,000

$9,631,557

Type of

Obligation

Total

Obligations

 Total

 Benefits1

 Income

 Benefits2

 Medical

 Benefits3

 Administrative

 Costs4

 Interest

 Charges5

Repayable

Advances6

Cumulative

Debt7

1

 Excludes collections from responsible mine operators for benefits paid by

Trust Fund on an interim basis, refunds for OWCP administrative costs paid,

and other miscellaneous reimbursements.

2

 Monthly and retroactive benefit payments.

3

 Includes diagnostic and treatment costs, and reimbursements to the Centers

for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human

Services and the Health and Retirement Funds of the UMWA.

4

 Administrative expenses include reimbursements to SSA.

5

 Starting in 1979, the Trust Fund had to borrow funds from the Treasury

Department to pay operating costs not covered by revenues. Interest charges

reflect the cost to the Trust Fund for those advances from the Treasury.

6

 Reflects advances from the Treasury Department during the fiscal year.

7

 Shows the cumulative debt of the Trust Fund to the Treasury.

Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Black Lung Tables B3 — B4
64

 Benefit Rates by Type of Beneficiary

Monthly Part C Black Lung Benefit Rates

1973—2006

Table B5

$169.80

177.60

187.40

196.80

205.40

219.90

232.00

254.00

279.80

293.20

304.90

317.10

328.20

338.00

344.80

358.90

371.80

387.10

403.30

418.20

427.40

427.40

435.10

445.10

455.40

469.50

487.40

500.50

518.50

534.60

549.00

562.80

574.60

$254.70

266.40

281.10

295.20

308.10

329.80

348.00

381.00

419.60

439.80

457.30

475.60

492.30

507.00

517.20

538.30

557.70

580.60

605.00

627.30

641.10

641.10

652.70

667.70

683.10

704.30

731.00

750.80

777.80

801.90

823.50

844.10

861.80

$297.10

310.80

328.00

344.40

359.50

384.80

405.90

444.50

489.60

513.10

533.60

554.90

574.30

591.50

603.40

628.10

650.60

677.40

705.80

731.90

748.00

748.00

761.50

779.00

796.90

821.60

852.80

875.90

907.40

935.50

960.80

984.80

1,005.50

$339.50

355.20

374.80

393.50

410.80

439.70

463.90

508.00

559.50

586.40

609.80

634.20

656.40

676.00

689.60

717.80

743.60

774.10

806.60

836.40

854.80

854.80

870.20

890.20

910.70

939.00

974.70

1,001.00

1,037.00

1,069.20

1,098.00

1,125.50

1,149.10

7/1/73-9/30/73

10/1/73-9/30/74

10/1/74-9/30/75

10/1/75-9/30/76

10/1/76-9/30/77

10/1/77-9/30/78

10/1/78-9/30/79

10/1/79-9/30/80

10/1/80-9/30/81

10/1/81-9/30/82

10/1/82-12/31/83

1/1/84-12/31/841

1/1/85-12/31/86

1/1/87-12/31/87

1/1/88-12/31/88

1/1/89-12/31/89

1/1/90-12/31/90

1/1/91-12/31/91

1/1/92-12/31/92

1/1/93-12/31/93

1/1/94-12/31/94

1/1/95-12/31/95

1/1/96-12/31/96

1/1/97-12/31/97

1/1/98-12/31/98

1/1/99-12/31/99

1/1/00-12/31/00

1/1/01-12/31/01

1/1/02-12/31/02

1/1/03-12/31/03

1/1/04-12/31/04

1/1/05-12/31/05

1/1/06-12/31/06

1These benefit rates include the additional one-half percent increase that was

granted retroactive to January 1, 1984. The rates in effect prior to the retroactive

Funding

Funding and Disbursements

of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

FY 2006

($ thousands)

Table B6

Month

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

Totals

$10,181

57,370

53,499

50,321

51,829

57,942

55,426

50,392

42,361

51,702

47,582

78,782

$607,387

$0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

445,000

$445,000

$292

265

378

282

185

437

1.303

696

386

190

347

202

$4,963

$10,473

57,635

53,877

50,603

52,014

58,379

56,729

51,088

42,747

51,892

47,929

523,984

$1,057,350

$22,383

22,457

22,523

22,010

22,563

22,430

22,038

22,181

21,882

21,708

21,773

21,417

$265,365

$234

412

344

276

294

356

275

387

279

245

324

265

$3,693

$2,765

3,568

2,778

2,289

3,371

4,181

3,431

4,208

2,535

2,691

3,520

2,673

$38,009

$25,382

26,437

25,645

24,575

26,229

26,967

25,744

26,776

24,696

24,643

25,617

24,356

$307,067

$4,202

3,398

3,612

5,162

5,233

5,194

5,185

5,186

5,182

5,179

5,183

5,259

$57,975

$0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

694,964

$694,964

$29,585

29,835

29,257

29,738

31,461

32,161

30,929

31,961

29,878

29,823

30,800

724,579

$1,060,006

1

 Reimbursements include collections from RMOs, and fines, penalties, and interest.

2

 Includes monthly and retroactive benefit payments.

3

 Treatment expenditures include reimbursements to the United Mine Workers' Health

and Retirement Funds.

Disbursements

Medical Benefits

Coal Excise

Tax

Revenue

Treasury

Advances Reimburse1 Total

Income

Benefits2 Diagnostic Treatment

3

Total

Benefits

Admin.

Costs

Interest on

Advances Total

payments (1/l/84 through 6/30/84) were: $315.60 for a claimant only; $473.30

for a claimant and 1 dependent; $552.20 for a claimant and 2 dependents; and,

$631.10 for a claimant and 3 or more dependents.

Black Lung Tables B5 — B6

Period Claimant

Claimant and

1 Dependent

Claimant and

2 Dependents

Claimant and 3 or

More Dependents

65
1

 Maximum became applicable in death cases (for any death after September

28, 1984) pursuant to LHWCA Amendments of 1984. Section 9(e)(1) provides

that the total weekly death benefits shall not exceed the lesser of the average

weekly wages of the deceased or the benefits that the deceased would have

been eligible to receive under section 6(b)(1). Maximum in death cases not

applicable to DCCA cases (Keener v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority, 800 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. (1986)).

2

 Five percent statutory maximum increase applicable in FY 1985 under section

10(f) of LHWCA, as amended. Maximum increase not applicable to DCCA

cases (see note1, above).

66 67

National Average Weekly Wage (NAWW) and Corresponding

Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates and Annual Adjustments

Pursuant to Sections 6(b), 9(e), and 10(f) of LHWCA

Table C2

Period

11/26/72-9/30/73

10/01/73-9/30/74

10/01/74-9/30/75

10/01/75-9/30/76

10/01/76-9/30/77

10/01/77-9/30/78

10/01/78-9/30/79

10/01/79-9/30/80

10/01/80-9/30/81

10/01/81-9/30/82

10/01/82-9/30/83

10/01/83-9/30/84

10/01/84-9/30/85

10/01/85-9/30/86

10/01/86-9/30/87

10/01/87-9/30/88

10/01/88-9/30/89

10/01/89-9/30/90

10/01/90-9/30/91

10/01/91-9/30/92

10/01/92-9/30/93

10/01/93-9/30/94

10/01/94-9/30/95

10/01/95-9/30/96

10/01/96-9/30/97

10/01/97-9/30/98

10/01/98-9/30/99

10/01/99-9/30/00

10/01/00-9/30/01

10/01/01-9/30/02

10/01/02-9/30/03

10/01/03-9/30/04

10/01/04-9/30/05

10/01/05-9/30/06

NAWW

$ 131.80

140.26

149.10

159.20

171.28

183.61

198.39

213.13

228.12

248.35

262.35

274.17

289.83

297.62

302.66

308.48

318.12

330.31

341.07

349.98

360.57

369.15

380.46

391.22

400.53

417.87

435.88

450.64

466.91

483.04

498.27

515.39

523.58

536.82

Maximum

Payable

$ 167.00

210.54

261.00

318.38

342.54

367.22

396.78

426.26

456.24

496.70

524.70

548.341

579.66

595.24

605.32

616.96

636.24

660.62

682.14

699.96

721.14

738.30

760.92

782.44

801.06

835.74

871.76

901.28

933.82

966.08

996.54

1,030.78

1,047.16

1,073.64

Minimum

Payable

$ 65.90

70.18

74.57

79.60

85.64

91.81

99.20

106.57

114.06

124.18

131.18

137.09

144.92

148.81

151.33

154.24

159.06

165.16

170.54

174.99

180.29

184.58

190.23

195.61

200.27

208.94

217.94

225.32

233.46

241.52

249.14

257.70

261.79

268.41

Annual Adjustment

(% Increase in NAWW)

——

6.49

6.26

6.74

7.59

7.21

8.05

7.43

7.03

8.87

5.64

4.51

5.71

2

2.69

1.69

1.92

3.13

3.83

3.26

2.61

3.03

2.38

3.06

2.83

2.38

4.33

4.31

3.39

3.61

3.45

3.15

3.44

1.59

2.53

LHWCA Tables C1 — C2

 Calendar Year

Total Industry Compensation

and Benefit Payments Under LHWCA1

CY 1996—CY 20052

($ thousands)

Table C1

$272,688

226,592

$499,280

$263,255

219,352

$482,607

$261,559

238,464

$500,023

$283,991

232,778

$516,769

$278,952

249,671

$528,623

$307,708

236,726

$544,434

$310,940

246,603

$557,543

$309,843

262,753

$572,596

$322,520

278,887

$601,407

$325,694

325,027

$650,721

Payments By:

 Self-Insured

 Employers

 Insurance Carriers

Total Payments

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1

 Includes disability compensation and medical benefit payments under LHWCA,

DCCA, and all other extensions to the Act.

2

 Industry payments are reported to the Department of Labor on a calendar year basis.
2006 133,270 123,412 1,811 2,749 5,298 4,908 10,246 9,418 588 0 240 621

133,000 361,549 CY 2000 12,000 5,103 CY 2000

1998 129,777 118,496 2,699 3,718 4,864 5,208 12,521 10,810 802 4 904 638

1999 131,152 117,574 2,439 4,888 6,251 5,145 11,879 10,748 747 6 377 617

68 69

LHWCA DCCA

Total Industry

Assessments2

Preceding Year Total

Industry Payments3

 Assessment

Base Year

Total Industry

Assessments

2

Preceding Year Total

Industry Payments

Assessment

Base Year

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Assessments

1

CY 1997—CY 2006

($ thousands)

Table C4

1

 Annual assessments of employers and insurance carriers are the largest single

source of receipts to the Special Funds. Other receipts to the Funds include

fines and penalties, payments for death cases where there is no person entitled

under the Act to the benefit payments, interest earned on Fund investments,

overpayment and third party recoveries, and monies received from redemption

of securities under section 32 of the Act to pay compensation due employees

of companies in default. These payments constitute a small portion of the total

receipts of the Special Funds.

2

 Assessments as shown here are not receipts to the Fund which were received

during a given calendar year, but total assessments that are receivable from

CY

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

employers and insurance carriers based on the Special Fund assessment formula

as prescribed under section 44(c) of the Act.

3

 Annual industry assessments prior to CY 1985 were based on each employer’s

or insurance carrier’s total disability compensation and medical benefit payments

under the Act during the preceding calendar year. The LHWCA Ammendments

of 1984 revised the method for computing assessments in two ways. Effective

in CY 1985, assessments are based on disability compensation payments only,

thereby excluding medical benefits from the computation. Also, a factor for

section 8(f) payments attributable to each employer/carrier was added to the

assessment base.

DCCA

Expenditures ($)

LHWCA

Expenditures ($)

FY Total

Second

Injury

Cases2

Pre

Amend.

Cases3 Rehab.4 Other5

Number

of

Second

Injury

Cases Total

Second

Injury

Cases2

Pre

Amend.

Cases3 Rehab.4 Other5

Number

of

Second

Injury

Cases

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Expenditures1

FY 1997—FY 2006

($ thousands)

Table C3

1

 Special Fund expenditures shown in this table are reported on a cash basis,

i.e., expenses are recognized when paid.

2

 Section 8(f) payments to employees who sustain second injuries that,

superimposed on a pre-existing injury, results in the employee's permanent

disability or death.

3

 Section 10(h) of the Act requires that compensation payments to permanent

total disabilily and death cases, when the injury or death is caused by an

employment event that occurred prior to enactment of the 1972 amendments,

be adjusted to conform with the weekly wage computation methods and

compensation rates put into effect by the 1972 amendments. Fifty percent of

any additional compensation or death benefit paid as a result of these adjustments

are to be paid out of the Special Fund accounts.

4

 In cases where vocational or medical rehabilitation services for permanently

disabled employees are not available otherwise, and for maintenance allowances

for employees undergoing vocational rehabilitation, sections 39(c) and 8(g)

of the Act authorize the cost of these services to be paid by the Special Fund.

5 For cases where impartial medical exams or reviews are ordered by the

Department of Labor (section 7(e) of Act) and where a compensation award

cannot be paid due to employer default (section 18(b)), the expenses or

payments resulting from these actions may be covered by the Special Fund.

Also included as "Other" expenditures of the Funds are disbursements under

section 44(d) to refund assessment overpayments in FY 1991 - FY 1993,

and FY1995 - FY 2006. Excluded are disbursements from proceeds of

employer securities redeemed under section 32 of the Act. These monies are

exclusively for payment of compensation and medical benefits to employees

of companies in default.

Note: Special Fund expenditure totals for some years as shown above may differ from those

reported to Congress in the Appendix to the President's budget. The figures here are from yearend Status of Funds reports while the President's budget reflects total outlays as reported to the

Department of Treasury and may include technical adjustments made by Treasury or the Office

of Management and Budget.

2005 134,549 122,418 1,973 5,002 5,156 4,588 10,604 9,767 597 0 240 527

1997 $123,772 $111,732 $2,570 $4,170 $5,300 5,209 $11,548 $10,375 $807 $1 $366 651

$110,000 $350,711 CY 1996 $11,300 $6,361 CY 1996

111,000 334,339 CY 1997 11,000 5,911 CY 1997

LHWCA Tables C3 — C4

2002 131,715 119,661 2,240 4,801 5,013 4,880 11,386 10,214 702 0 469 585

130,000 343,146 CY 1998 11,300 6,232 CY 1998

2000 131,564 119,198 2,459 4,595 5,313 5,025 11,804 10,521 728 0 555 612

133,000 353,462 CY 1999 12,700 5,179 CY 1999

2001 133,374 119,952 2,295 5,121 6,006 4,953 11,341 10,368 708 0 265 601 125,000 372,376 CY 2001 11,000 5,552 CY 2001

2003 131,589 119,965 2,153 4,628 4,844 4,778 11,184 9,997 664 0 523 572

125,000 364,194 CY 2002 10,800 4,746 CY 2002

2004 135,247 122,358 2,081 4,990 5,818 4,694 10,920 9,867 645 0 408 544

137,000 368,671 CY 2003 11,500 4,286 CY 2003

135,000 388,258 CY 2004 11,500 5,402 CY 2004

125,000 418,714 CY 2005 10,500 4,277 CY 2005
 Fiscal Year

Summary of Case Processing Activities Under LHWCA1

FY 1997—FY 2006

Table C5

7,759

4,909

3,5202

8,429

3,557

4,872

399

457

856

539

3483

6,974

3,8494

3,579

7,428

3,566

3,8625

348

419

767

464

3186

9,006

3,862

3,462

7,324

3,656

3,668

318

421

739

438

3267

8,675

3,668

3,566

7,234

3,672

3,562

326

423

749

467

2957

6,489

3,562

3,500

7,062

3,674

3,388

295

317

612

384

2487

7,391

3,388

3,276

6,664

3,529

2,9808

248

260

508

319

2087

5,495

2,980

3,036

6,016

3,499

2,517

208

332

540

282

2677

6,051

2,517

2,926

5,443

3,088

2,355

267

297

564

355

2227

6,375

2,355

2,763

5,118

2,800

2,318

222

288

510

304

2117

6,338

2,318

2,413

4,731

2,747

1,984

211

248

459

288

1827

Adjudication Level

and Case Status

District Offices

Pending Inventory of Cases

OALJ

 Carryover from Previous FY

 New Cases

Total Docket

 (Dispositions)

Pending Inventory

BRB

 Carryover from Previous FY

 New Cases

Total Docket

 (Dispositions)

Pending Inventory

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

1 Beginning in FY 1988, DCAA cases are excluded from DLHWC’s District

Offices’ inventory as administration of these cases was delegated to the District

of Columbia government effective July 18, 1988. Case processing and adjudication

activities at the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and Benefits Review

Board (BRB) levels continue to include both LHWCA and DCCA cases.

2 Excludes 116 new "33(g)" cases and 1,496 "33(g)" cases remanded from BRB

being held in abeyance.

3 Number adjusted by BRB to account for misfiled, duplicate, or

reinstated appeals.

4 The difference between the carryover in FY 1998 and pending inventory

at the end of FY 1997 is due to data modifications and corrections made by

the OALJ.

5 The FY 1998 numbers do not include 2,877 section 33(g) cases that

were pending at the beginning of the year, or the 30 dispositions that occurred

in such cases.

6

 Data adjustments by the BRB account for the difference between the sum

of activity in FY 1998 and that year's pending inventory at year-end.

7

 Data adjusted by BRB to account for misfiled, duplicate, or reinstated

appeals.

8

 Includes dispositions of Boone 33(g) cases.

70

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 2006

1

Table D1 Part B

Case Status/Claims Activity

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2006

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2006

 Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication Branch (FAB)4

 Final Approved

 Final Denied

 Recommended Decisions by District Offices5

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Approve

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Deny

 Completed Initial Processing-

 Referred to NIOSH

 Pending Initial Processing In District Office6

Lump Sum Compesations

Total Payment Amounts

1

 Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception through

September 30, 2006.

2

 “Case” counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and

illness or death are the basis for a “claim.” (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3

 “Claim” counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees

and all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4

 Each case or claim also received recommended decision by district office.

5

 Each case or claim still pending final decision by FAB.

6

 Includes remanded cases now in development and closed cases.

71

EEOICPA Table D1 Part B

Case2

53,920

40,976

28,453

15,443

13,010

1,698

412

1,286

7,627

3,198

14,141

Claim3

77,053

62,187

39,748

22,585

17,163

2,445

662

1,783

11,091

8,903

21,131

$1,697,410,094

LHWCA Table C5
72

Processing Activity

During FY 2006 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims

1

Table D2 Part B

73

EEOICPA Tables D1 Part E — D2 Part B

Processing Activity

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2006

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2006

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2006

 Final Approved

 Final Denied

Modification Orders in FY 2006

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2006

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Approve

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Deny

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2006

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2006

Remands

1

 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2006 only, therefore the number of

activities reported do not add up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY

2006. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims received prior to FY 2006).

2

 “Case” counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and

illness or death are the basis for a “claim.” (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3

 “Claim” counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees

and all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4

 Total includes cases with recommended decisions in FY 2006.

Case2

5,472

5,117

7,5464

3,593

3,953

130

8,107

3,749

4,358

3,759

see claim statistics

537

Claim3

7,908

7,528

12,169

6,103

6,066

147

13,207

6,481

6,726

5,526

5,215

940

1

 Statistics show the status from program inception through September 30, 2006.

2

 “Case” counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and

illness or death are the basis for a “claim.” (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3

 “Claim” counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees

and all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4

 Each case or claim also received recommended decision by district office.

5

 Each case or claim still pending final decision by FAB.

6

 Includes remanded cases now in development and closed cases.

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 20061

Table D1 Part E

Case Status/Claims Activity

Total Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2006

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2006

 Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication Branch (FAB)4

 Final Approved

 Final Denied

 Recommended Decisions by District Offices5

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Approve

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Deny

 Completed Initial Processing - Referred to NIOSH

 Pending Initial Processing In District Office6

Compensation Payments (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Compensation Payment Amts.

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Lump Sum Payment Amts.

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts.

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Impairment Payment Amts.

Case2

41,897

36,563

9,941

7,432

2,509

2,810

683

2,127

759

23,053

3,714

3,578

435

124

Claim3

56,175

43,706

10,014

7,609

2,405

2,914

712

2,202

809

29,969

3,866

$473,687,170

3,738

$445,208,340

516

$15,104,214

124

$13,374,616
74

Processing Activity

During FY 2006 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims1

Table D2 Part E

75

EEOICPA Tables D2 Part E — D3 Part B

Processing Activity

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2006

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received - FY 2006

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2006

 Final Approved

 Final Denied

Modification Orders in FY 2006

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2006

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Approve

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Deny

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2006

Compensation Payments in FY 2006 (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Compensation Payment Amts.

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Compensation Payment Amts.

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts.

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims)

Total Impairment Payment Amts.

Remands

1

 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2006 only, therefore the number of

activities reported do not add up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY

2006. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims received prior to FY 2006).

2

 “Case” counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and

illness or death are the basis for a “claim.” (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3

 “Claim” counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees

and all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4

 Total includes cases with recommended decisions in FY 2006.

Case2

10,354

7,708

7,8374

5,493

2,344

21

14,028

6,343

7,685

779

2,218

2,057

322

123

564

Claim3

16,556

10,335

9,777

6,357

3,420

25

16,458

7,483

8,975

824

2,362

$280,330,416

2,200

$255,697,416

396

$11,420,884

123

$13,212,116

710

EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Payments

by Category, Program Inception Through September 30, 2006

Table D3 Part B

Category

Radiation Exposure Comp. Act (RECA)2

Special Exposure Cohort Cancer (CN)

Dose Reconstructed Cancer (CN)

Beryllium Disease (CBD)3

Beryllium Sensitivity-Only (BS)

Silicosis (CS)

Multiple Conditions4

Total

1

 There is not a direct correlation between number of approved cases and

number of paid claimants for two reasons: (1) more than one claimant can

receive payment on a single approved case, and (2) some cases were approved

prior to 9/30/2006, but payments were not issued.

2

 RECA cases are not counted in any other category of this table.

3

 Cases approved for both CBD and BS are counted in the CBD category, only.

4

 Cases counted in the Multiple Conditions category were approved for CN and

CBD, or CN and CS, or CBD and CS, or CN and BS, or CS and BS.

5

 Total does not include 71 cases that could not be attributed to the designated

categories.

Approved Cases1

4,255

4,876

3,469

1,551

1,087

64

105

Final Approvals

27.6%

31.6%

22.5%

10.1%

7.1%

0.4%

0.7%

Paid Claimants

1

6,733

7,378

4,723

2,015

N/A

73

112

($ thousands)

$213,953

718,487

502,221

228,345

N/A

9,470

14,833

Compensation Paid

12.7%

42.6%

29.8%

13.5%

N/A

0.6%

0.9%

Number of Percentage of Total Number of Compensation Paid Percentage of Total

Total

15,407 100.0% 21,034 $1,687,3095 100.0%
76 77

EEOICPA Covered and Non-Covered Application Cases With Final

Decision To Deny, Program Inception Through September 30, 2006

Table D4 Part B

EEOICPA Tables D4 Part B — D4 Part E

Reason for Denial

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE Facility, Atomic Weapons Employer, or Beryllium

Vendor During a Covered Time Period2

Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part B of EEOICPA2

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability That the Cancer is Related to Employment is Less

Than 50 Percent

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement

Total

Number of Cases1

3,100

513

9,774

8,593

3,724

25,704

1

 A case may have more than one final decision. (For example, a request for

modification may result in a second final decision on a case). Therefore, the total

number shown does not represent the number of cases with final decisions to deny.

2

 Non-covered applications.

EEOICPA Covered and Non-Covered Application Cases With Final

Decision To Deny, Program Inception Through September 30, 2006

Table D4 Part E

Reason for Denial

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE Facility, Atomic Weapons Employer, or Beryllium

Vendor During a Covered Time Period2

Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary2

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability That the Cancer is Related to Employment is Less

Than 50 Percent

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement

Total

Number of Cases

1

1,093

3,620

189

2,140

7,042

1

 A case may have more than one final decision. (For example, a request for

modification may result in a second final decision on a case). Therefore, the total

number shown does not represent the number of cases with final decisions to deny.

2

 Non-covered applications.
Most Prevalent Non-Covered Medical Conditions,

EEOIC Program Inception Through September 30, 2006

Table D5 Part B

Non-Covered Medical Condition

Other Lung Conditions

Heart Condition/Failure/Attack/Hypertension

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease & Emphysema

Asbestosis

Renal Condition or Disorder (Kidney Failure, Kidney Stones)

Hearing Loss

Benign Tumors, Polyps, Skin Spots

Diabetes

Neurological Disorder

Thyroid Conditions (e.g., Hypothyroidism)

Anemia

Back or Neck Problems

Parkinson’s Disease

Psychological Conditions

All Other Non-Covered Conditions (Each Less Than 1%) or Other (Not Listed)

No Condition Reported on Claim Form or Blank Condition Type

For This Condition1

22%

10

7

6

5

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

27

8

Percentage of All Denials

1

 Based on 9,774 cases that were denied because claimed condition was not

covered under Part B of EEOICPA. These figures exclude cases that have a

“covered” condition whereas Table D-4 Part B includes these cases.

Note: The sum of individual items may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

78 79

EEOICPA Table D5 Part B
Region III—Philadelphia

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,

Virginia, West Virginia)

Regional Office

R. David Lotz, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP

Curtis Center, Suite 780 West

170 S. Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3313

215-861-5402

Philadelphia FECA District Office

John McKenna, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

Curtis Center, Suite 715 East

170 S. Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3308

215-861-5481

Baltimore Longshore District Office

Emma Riley, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

The Federal Building, Room 410-B

31 Hopkins Plaza

Baltimore, MD 21201

410-962-3677

Norfolk Longshore District Office

Theresa Magyar, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

Federal Building, Room 212

200 Granby Mall

Norfolk, VA 23510

757-441-3071

Johnstown Black Lung District Office

Stuart Glassman, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Penn Traffic Building, suite 226

319 Washington Street

Johnstown, PA 15901-1667

814-533-4323 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3754)

81

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20210

202-693-0031

www.dol.gov/esa/owcp_org.htm

Director,

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Shelby Hallmark

Deputy Director,

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Nancy M. Flynn

Director,

Division of Planning, Policy and Standards

Cecily Rayburn

Division of Federal Employees' Compensation

(www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/dfec)

Douglas C. Fitzgerald, Director

Edward Duncan, Debuty Director

Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation

(www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/dcmwc)

James L. DeMarce, Director

Steven D. Breeskin, Deputy Director

Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation 

(www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/dlhwc)

Michael Niss, Director

Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation

(www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/energy)

Rachel P. Leiton, Director

Christy A. Long, Deputy Director

LuAnn Kressley, Chief, Final Adjudication Branch

Region I /II—Northeast

(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,

Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands)

Regional Office (New York)

Robert Sullivan Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP

201 Varick Street, Room 740

New York, NY 10014

646-264-3100

New York FECA District Office

Zev Sapir, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

201 Varick Street, Room 740

New York, NY 10014-0566

646-264-3000

New York Longshore District Office

Richard V. Robilotti, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

201 Varick Street, Room 740

Post Office Box 249

New York, NY 10014-0249

646-264-3010

Boston FECA District Office

Susan Morales, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

JFK Federal Building, Room E-260

Boston, MA 02203

617-624-6600

Boston Longshore District Office

David Groeneveld, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

JFK Federal Building, Room E-260

Boston, MA 02203

617-624-6750

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facility:

(New York Site)

David San Lorenzo, Office Manager

6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 2A, Box #2

Amherst, NY 14226

716-832-6200 (Toll-Free 1-800-941-3943)

80 newyork.center@rrohio.com

Office

Directory
82 83

Wilkes-Barre Black Lung District Office

Maribeth Girton, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

100 N. Wilkes-Barre Blvd., Room 300A

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-5245

570-826-6457 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3755)

Charleston Black Lung District Office

Richard Hanna, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Charleston Federal Center, Suite 110

500 Quarrier Street

Charleston, WV 25301-2130

304-347-7100 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3749)

Greensburg Black Lung District Office

Colleen Smalley, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

1225 South Main Street, Suite 405

Greensburg, PA 15601-5370

724-836-7230 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3753)

Parkersburg Black Lung Sub-District Office

Vicki Frye, Supervisory Claims Examiner

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

425 Juliana Street, Suite 3116

Parkersburg, WV 26101-5352

304-420-6385 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3751)

DCMWC Field Stations

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Mine Safety & Health Academy, Rm. G-100

139 Airport Road

Beckley, WV 25802

304-252-9514

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Federal Building

601 Federal Street

Bluefield, WV 24701

304-325-2164

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Elkins Social Security Office

Jennings-Randolph Building

300 3rd Street, Suite 325

Elkins, WV 26241

304-636-4747

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

523 Dingess Street

P.O. Office Box 1979

Logan, WV 25601

304-752-9514

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Post Office Box 790

Uneeda, WV 25205

304-369-6050

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

604 Cheat Road

Morgantown, WV 26505

304-291-4277

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Wise County Plaza, 2nd Floor

Route 23

Wise, VA 24293

276-679-4590

Region IV—Southeast

(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee)

Regional Office

Richard A. Brettell, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP

400 West Bay Street, Room 943

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4776

Jacksonville FECA District Office

Magdalena Fernandez, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

400 West Bay Street, Room 826

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4777

Jacksonville Longshore District Office

Charles Lee, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

Charles E. Bennett Federal Bldg.

400 West Bay Street, Room 63A, Box 28

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4788

Jacksonville Energy District Office

James Bibeault, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DEEOIC

400 West Bay Street, Room 722

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4705 (Toll-Free 1-877-336-4272)

Pikeville Black Lung District Office

Roger Belcher, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

164 Main Street, Suite 508

Pikeville, KY 41501-1182

606-432-0116 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4599)

Mt. Sterling Black Lung Sub-District Office

Brenda K. Jamison, Assistant District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

402 Campbell Way

Mt. Sterling, KY 40353

859-497-8501 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4628)

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Paducah Site)

Jim Monahan, Office Manager

Barkley Center, Unit 125

125 Memorial Drive

Paducah, KY 42001

270-534-0599 (Toll-Free 1-866-534-0599)

paducah.center@rrohio.com

(Savannah River Site)

Karen Hillman, Office Manager

1708 Bunting Drive

North Augusta, SC 29841

803-279-2728 (Toll-Free 1-866-666-4606)

srs.center@rrohio.com

(Oak Ridge Site)

Susan Adkisson, Office Manager

Jackson Plaza Office Complex

800 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Suite C-103

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

865-481-0411 (Toll-Free 1-866-481-0411)

or.center@rrohio.gov

Office Directory
84 85

Region V/VII—Midwest

(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, overseas cases)

Regional Office (Chicago)

Nancy Jenson, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP

230 South Dearborn Street, Room 800

Chicago, IL 60604

312-596-7131

Chicago FECA District Office

Joan Rosel, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

230 South Dearborn Street, Room 800

Chicago, IL 60604

312-596-7157

Cleveland FECA District Office

Karen Spence, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

1240 East Ninth Street, Room 851

Cleveland, OH 44199

216-357-5100

Cleveland Energy District Office

Annette Prindle, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DEEOIC

1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 350

Cleveland, OH 44114

216-802-1300 (Toll-Free 1-888-859-7211)

Columbus Black Lung District Office

Lorraine Rardain, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

1160 Dublin Road, Suite 300

Columbus, OH 43215-1052

614-469-5227 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3771)

Kansas City FECA District Office

Lois Maxwell, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

Two Pershing Square Bldg.

2300 Main Street, Suite 1090

Kansas City, MO 64108-2416

816-502-0301

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facility:

(Portsmouth Site)

Jackie Sensue, Office Manager

1200 Gay Street

Portsmouth, OH 45662

740-353-6993 (Toll-Free 1-866-363-6993)

portsmouth.center@rrohio.com

Region VI/VIII—Southwest

(Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico,

North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,

Wyoming)

Regional Office (Dallas)

E. Martin Walker, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP

525 South Griffin Street, Room 407

Dallas, TX 75202

972-850-2409

Dallas FECA District Office

Frances Memmolo, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

525 South Griffin Street, Room 100

Dallas, TX 75202

972-850-2300

Houston Longshore District Office

Brad Soshea, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

Mickey Leland Federal Building

1919 Smith Street, Suite 870

Houston, TX 77002

713-209-3235

New Orleans Longshore District Office

David Duhon, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

600 S. Maestri Place, Suite 617

New Orleans, LA 70130

504-589-2671

Denver FECA District Office

Shirley Bridge, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

1999 Broadway, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80202

720-264-3000

Denver Black Lung District Office

Deborah Brunger, Acting District Director

U.S. Department of Labor,

ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

1999 Broadway, Suite 690

Denver, CO 80202

720-264-3100 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4612)

Denver Energy District Office

Janet Kapsin, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DEEOIC

1999 Broadway, Suite 1120

Denver, CO 80202-5711

720-264-3060 (Toll-Free 1-888-805-3389)

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Rocky Flats Site)

Janele Horner, Office Manager

8758 Wolff Court, Suite 101

Westminster, CO 80031

720-540-4977 (Toll-Free 1-866-540-4977)

denver.center@rrohio.com

(Espanola Site)

Wilfred Martinez, Office Manager

412 Paseo De Onate, Suite D

Espanola, NM 87532

505-747-6766 (Toll-Free 1-866-272-3622)

espanola.center@rrohio.com

Office Directory
86

Region IX/X—Pacific

(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho,

Nevada, Oregon, Washington)

Regional Office (San Francisco)

Sharon Tyler, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-100

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-848-6880

San Francisco FECA District Office

Andy Tharp, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-300

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-625-7500

San Francisco Longshore District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-100

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-625-7669

Long Beach Longshore District Office

Eric Richardson, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

401 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 720

Long Beach, CA 90802

562-980-3577

Honolulu Longshore Sub-District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 5-135

Post Office Box 50209

Honolulu, HI 96850

808-541-1983

Seattle FECA District Office

Marcus Tapia, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 650

Seattle, WA 98101-3212

206-398-8100

Seattle Longshore District Office

Karen Staats, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DLHWC

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 620

Seattle, WA 98101-3212

206-398-8255

l

Seattle Energy District Office

Joyce Vail, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DEEOIC

719 2nd Avenue, Suite 601

Seattle, WA 98104

206-373-6750 (Toll-Free 1-888-805-3401)

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Idaho Falls Site)

Steve Beehler, Office Manager

1820 East 17th Street, Suite 375

Idaho Falls, ID 83404

208-523-0158 (Toll-Free 1-800-861-8608)

idaho.center@rrohio.com

(Las Vegas Site)

Joe Krachenfels, Office Manager

Flamingo Executive Park

1050 East Flamingo Road, Suite W-156

Las Vegas, NV 89119

702-697-0841 (Toll-Free 1-866-697-0841)

vegas.center@rrohio.com

(Hanford Site)

Steve Beehler, Office Manager

303 Bradley Blvd., Ste.104

Richland, WA 99352

509-946-3333 (Toll-Free 1-888-654-0014)

hanford.center@rrohio.com

(California Site)

Joe Krachenfels, Office Manager

2600 Kitty Hawk Road, Suite 101

Livermore, CA 94551

925-606-6302 (Toll-Free 1-866-606-6302)

california.center@rrohio.com

National Operations Office

(District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia)

Linda DeCarlo, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor, ESA/OWCP/DFEC

National Operations Office

800 N. Capitol St., NW.

Room 800

Washington, DC 20211

202-513-6800

87

Office Directory