Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

2005

OWCP

Annual Report to Congress FY 2005

Submitted to Congress 2008

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 2008

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment Standards Administration, Victoria A. Lipnic, Assistant Secretary

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs,Shelby Hallmark, Director

OWCP Annual 

Report to Congress FY 2005
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EMPLOYEE STANDARDS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

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 2005 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, 2004, through

September 30, 2005.

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,

Victoria A. Lipnic

Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards

Enclosures

U.S. Department of Labor
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

I am pleased to submit the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) Annual

Report for Fiscal Year 2005 to Congress.

In FY 2005, OWCP successfully

implemented the new Part E program created

by the October 2004 amendments to the

Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act, while at the same

time improving administration of Part B of that

law. Important outreach and claims

management services were provided to

contracting agencies and insurers in response

to the increase in Defense Base Act covered

employment and claims associated with

expanded civilian contract work in the Middle

East. Government-wide performance in

reducing injury rates and lost production days

improved in the second year of the President’s

Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment

(SHARE) initiative. The SHARE goal of filing

FECA injury notices in a timely manner was

substantially exceeded. The goal to minimize

the impact of work-related injuries was

substantially achieved as OWCP continued to

meet or exceed a large majority of its program

performance standards for both its

Government Performance Results Act goals

and operational plans.

Victoria A. Lipnic

Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards

The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

(OWCP) was challenged in Fiscal Year 2005 by

receipt of a major new compensation program:

Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).

Congress enacted Part E in October 2004 to

replace the cancelled Part D of EEOICPA, which

had developed a large backlog in four years at

the Department of Energy. OWCP started

issuing payments before the interim final rule

was promulgated in June, and substantially

exceeded the key goal of issuing 1,200 Part E

payments by the end of FY 2005 – producing

more than 1,500 payments totaling almost $200

million in less than 10 months.

The Federal Employees’ Compensation

Act (FECA) program also met significant

challenges. The second year of the President’s

Safety, Health and Return to Employment

(SHARE) initiative saw improving

performance, but three of its four goals were not

met. The fourth SHARE goal, timely filing of

FECA injury notices, was greatly exceeded, with

nearly 71 percent of non-Postal agencies filing

their cases with OWCP within 14 days.

The implementation of a new integrated

computer support system for the FECA

program brought transition problems, but FEC

claims staff maintained timeliness standards

and continued to improve return to work

outcomes. In fact, OWCP’s overall efforts to

increase return to work, implement the SHARE

initiative, and improve medical cost

containment resulted in the lowest FECA

benefit cost increase since FY 1997.

In FY 2005 OWCP’s Longshore

program handled an increase in Defense Base

Act (DBA) claims in a timely manner, and the

program provided extensive compliance

assistance to DBA stakeholders, many of

whom were unfamiliar with its requirements.

OWCP staff once again in FY 2005

substantially achieved the Department of

Labor’s Government Performance Results Act

goal to “minimize the human, social, and

financial impact of work-related injuries for

workers and their families” by meeting or

exceeding nine of its ten performance

indicators. Whether addressing whole new

challenges or maintaining high performance

expectations, OWCP staff achieved

measurable, important results for its customers

and stakeholders. Their dedication and

expertise are national assets.

Shelby Hallmark

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
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 Act 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

2005, these non-chargeback expenses were

approximately $29 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

Act, that did not contain mechanisms for billing

employers.

For FY 2005, administrative expenditures

for the FEC program totaled $136.8 million. Of

this amount, $126.3 million, approximately 4.9

percent of total program costs, were direct

appropriations to the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP), including

$86.8 million in salaries and expenses and $39.5

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, medical bill

cost control, and the central

bill processing contract.

Another $10.4 million are

separately appropriated to

the Department for legal, investigative, and other

support from the Employees' Compensation

Appeals Board (ECAB), Office of the Solicitor, and

the Office of the Inspector General.

Government Performance

Results Act

In FY 2005, 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:

Fewer numbers of FECA wage-loss disability

days were paid this year enabling DFEC to meet

Lost Production Days rate (LPD per 100

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

cases was reduced from an average 147.2 days in

FY 2004 to 134.4 days; and LPD for all other

government cases was reduced from 61 days to

56.1 days, exceeding the 61-day target.

6 7

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

Benefit Outlays

Under FECA FY 2005

TOTAL BENEFITS*: $2,476 MILLION

Long Term Disability (Wage Loss) 55.0% $1,361 Million

Medical Benefits 27.1% $ 672 Million

Temporary Disability (Wage Loss) 12.2% $ 303 Million

Death Benefits 5.7% $ 140 Million

*Actual Obligations

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

injured under certain circumstances involving crimes against the United States.

For more than 89 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 and 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 FY 2005, the FEC program provided

277,000 workers and survivors nearly $2.5 billion

in benefits for work-related injuries or illnesses. Of

these benefit payments, over $1.6 billion were for

wage-loss compensation, $672 million for medical

and rehabilitation services, and $140 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 United

States for workplace injuries. Decisions for or

against the payment of benefits may be appealed

to the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board,

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 agency’s 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.
IFECS-Based

Case Adjudication and

Management

FY 2005 was a momentous year for the

FEC program as it replaced its FECS

claims adjudication and management

system with the new integrated Federal

Employees’ Compensation System

(iFECS) computer support system. As the

old legacy computers supporting FECS

began to experience serious stability

issues that threatened the program’s

ability to create new claims and make

compensation payments, management

initiated the iFECS deployment in a

phased roll-out to its 12 district offices

between February and April 2005.

Although iFECS did not have complete

functionality and experienced numerous start-up

and stability challenges in the second and third

quarters of FY 2005, claims work and bill

payments were not seriously disrupted during the

roll-out. Enhancements and application fixes have

yielded continuous improvements to the system

that are helping claims examiners become more

effective and efficient in case adjudication and

management of claims.

Approximately 152,000 new injury and

illness claims were filed under FECA in FY 2005.

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 percent were

adjudicated within 45 days of when OWCP

received notice of the injury. In FY 2005, 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,

88 percent were adjudicated within 90 days.

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

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 $17 million. In FY 2005, staff

achieved compensation savings of $23.2 million.

Of the cases that were screened, benefits were

adjusted or terminated in nearly 2,200 cases where

beneficiaries’ disability had either resolved or

Through use of Periodic Roll Management, DFEC

produced $23.2 million in first-year savings,

exceeding its target of $17 million.

The program achieved a rate of increase of 2.8

percent in per case medical costs in FECA

compared to an increase of 8.8 percent for

nationwide health care costs.

Improved FECA Customer Services was attained

in key Communications areas.

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 Elaine L.

Chao assigned the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration and the Employment

Standards Administration’s Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP) with

responsibility for administering and monitoring

program efforts.

OWCP has completed its second year of

data collection and performance tracking under

the SHARE Initiative. OWCP continued to

collaborate with agencies in achieving two of the

Initiative’s four 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 second

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 70.9 percent of their cases with

OWCP within 14 days, non-Postal agencies far

exceeded this goal for the second year. FY 2005’s

performance exceeded the goal by nearly 30

percent and exceeded the strong FY 2004 result

(61.4 percent) by more than 15 percent. Fifteen of

18 departments met or exceeded the goal, with 16

of 18 departments increasing their timeliness over

the baseline in both years of the Initiative. 

With non-Postal agencies averaging 56.1

lost days per 100 employees versus a goal of 54.9

lost days, the SHARE goal for lost production

days (LPD) was not met in FY 2005. Nevertheless,

performance in this area demonstrated a marked

improvement over the FY 2004 rate of 62 days. 

Twelve of the 18 departments and the majority of

the independent agencies met or exceeded the FY

2005 goal. In addition, eight of the departments

maintained a downward trend for the second year

in a row. The improvements made against this

difficult goal in FY 2005 demonstrate that

continued agency efforts could result in further

reduction in lost days and in meeting this critical

goal for the final year of the Initiative. 

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.

**FY 1996 excludes one-time (upward) adjustment of $85.5 million to implement

accrual-based accounting for benefit liabilities.

 1996** 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
10 11

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

lessened to the point that return to work was

possible. Savings from these actions will continue

in subsequent years.

Central

Medical Bill Processing

The second year of OWCP’s centralized medical

bill processing services contract with Lockheed

Martin Information Technology and Affiliated

Computer Systems achieved even greater

improvements in operating efficiencies. During

FY 2005, DFEC realized a $44.7 million reduction

in costs due to further improvements in the

editing of bills, which in turn reduced costs

charged back to agencies.

At the end of FY 2005, the vendor

processed 4,898,090 bills and handled 948,703

telephone calls. The vendor enrolled 42,768 new

providers in the system, bringing the total of

enrolled providers to 406,627 at the end of the

fiscal year. Nearly 98 percent of bills were being

processed within 28 days and authorizations for

treatment were processed in an average of 2.2

work days.

Services to Claimants and

Beneficiaries

In keeping with the “Pledge to Our Customers”,

the FEC program continued to focus on

improving customer service and satisfaction

during FY 2005. The number of calls to the DFEC

district offices decreased to 1.5 million from the

more than 1.9 million received the previous year.

The decrease in volume can be attributed to the

resolution of the customer service problems which

occurred with the start up of OWCP centralized

bill payment operations. Because of the improved

customer service provided by the bill payment

contractor, fewer calls were directed to DFEC

district offices. Nearly a third of the calls were

handled by Customer Service Representatives

(CSRs) in the district office call centers. The

weighted national average wait time of 2.55

minutes was nearly 35 seconds less than the goal

of 3.13 minutes. 

More calls, particularly those of a complex

nature, are now being handled by the CSRs, and

not passed on to claims examiners. This work

shift is beneficial on several levels. Callers receive

a high level of service and information at the time

of their call. Callers whose concerns are addressed

at the time of their call report a higher level of

customer satisfaction than those requiring a

returned call. Having to return fewer calls enable

claims examiners to devote more time to claims

management and return-to-work efforts. 

Quality silent monitoring of calls to the

district office phone banks as a quality assurance

method 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 are

used both for reporting purposes and for

identifying training needs. Local telephone

survey and quality silent monitoring results show

that 98 percent of callers received courteous

service, a nearly one point increase over FY 2004.

Use of clear and understandable language was

reported in 99.2 percent of calls, an increase of a

point and a half. Increasing nearly three points

over FY 2004, 96.8 percent of calls met knowledge

and accuracy standards. 

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 2005, the Branch of

Hearings and Review received a total of 6,757

incoming requests for reviews of the written

record and oral hearings, and issued a total of 6,961

decisions. The period of time between receipt of a

case file and the issuance of a remand or reversal

before a hearing was an average of 128 days. For

those case files where a hearing was held, time

period for a decision averaged 280 days between

the date the case file was received and the date the

hearing decision was issued. The Branch averaged

127 days for decisions emanating from a review of

the written record.

FECA Benefits Charged To

Employing Agencies

CHARGEBACK YEAR 2005

Chargeback Total: $2,334 Million

Postal Service $840 Million

Defense $600 Million*

Veterans Affairs $156 Million

Homeland Security $ 138 Million

Transportation $ 93 Million

Justice $ 80 Million

Agriculture $ 69 Million

All Other $ 358 Million

*Defense includes Navy ($238M), Army ($175M), Air Force ($125M),

and Deptartment of Defense ($63M).

Note: The sum of individual agencies may not equal total due to rounding.
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.

12 13

In an effort to maintain cost efficiency,

improve customer service and expedite cases

where hearings are held, the Branch began to offer

telephone hearings in lieu of face-to-face hearings

in FY 2005. This option has been well received by

all interested parties and it is expected that the

number of such requests will increase

dramatically in the future.

FECA Performance Study

In FY 2005, DFEC pursued recommendations

made by ICF Consulting in its 2004 evaluation of

the FEC program. ICF Consulting recommended

improving communications and assistance to

Federal agencies, particularly in the continuationof-pay period when the agency has the initial

jurisdiction over the injury claim. This

recommendation indicates that improvement of

injury case outcomes rests significantly on

strengthened efforts by Federal employers in

assisting with case processing and medical and

reemployment issues.

To better assist agencies with their injury

management and reemployment programs,

DFEC developed new on-line and on-site training

for agency front-line managers and compensation

personnel, and continued to improve automated

services to enable Federal agencies to more readily

access claims-specific and agency-level

performance and cost information related to

FECA.

In FY 2005, DFEC began to research and

develop new approaches that would adopt best

practices to strengthen its current COP-period

Telephonic Case Management nurse intervention

program and expand its technical assistance and

training programs. 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. Partnering with the

agencies to improve disability management is a key

FEC program strategy. The program also seeks to

perpetuate the heightened agency interest and

commitment that have been generated by the

Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment initiative

with goals to reduce injury rates, speed submission

of claims, and reduce lost production days.

Legislative Reform

In FY 2005, OWCP proposed, as part of the

Administration’s FY 2007 Budget, legislation to

reform the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.

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.

Change the way that schedule awards are paid to

allow uniform lump sum payments to federal

employees eligible for such awards.

Number of Employees

(FTE Staffing Used) 912

Administrative Expenditures* $ 126.3 M

Cases Created 151,690

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 21,455

Total Compensation and Benefit

Payments (Actual Obligations)** $2,476.5 M

Number of Medical Bills Processed 4,898,090

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

expenditures of $47.5 million in FY 2004 and $39.5 million in FY 2005, respectively.

**Compensation, medical, and survivor benefits.

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

 954

 $ 133.8 M

 162,965

 24,189

 $2,434.6 M

 4,667,338

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

 FY 2004 FY 2005
Introduction

The Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC) completed

its thirty-second year administering Part C of the Black Lung program in

2005. The initial Black Lung benefits program was enacted as part of the

Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. 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 seventies 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

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

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 FY 2005, monthly and retroactive benefit

payments totaled $280.0 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 miner

beneficiaries. 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 2005 were $50.0

million. This includes payments of $3.8 million for

diagnostic services, $43.0 million for medical

treatment, and $3.1 million in reimbursements to

the United Mine Workers of America Health and

Retirement Funds for the cost of treating Black

Lung beneficiaries. Nearly 367,000 bills were

processed during the year.

Total Black Lung Part C program

expenditures for all benefits in FY 2005 were

$329.9 million, a decrease of $17.0 million from FY

2004. In FY 2005, benefits were provided from the

Trust Fund to approximately 38,000 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, 2005, there were 1,533

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 34 fee petitions and paid

approximately $0.4 million in attorneys’ fees from

the Trust Fund.

In FY 2005, 1,423 claims were forwarded

for formal hearings before the Office of

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and 566

claims were forwarded on appeal to the Benefits

Review Board (BRB). At the end of FY 2005, the

OALJ had 2,531 claims pending while 515 were

pending before the BRB.

In the Black Lung Part B program, over

46,000 active beneficiaries (with nearly 5,000

dependents) were receiving approximately $29

million in monthly cash benefits as of September

30, 2005. Part B benefits in FY 2005 totaled more

than $346 million. DCMWC completed more

than 10,000 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.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2004

Black Lung

Benefit Expenditures

IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS*

2003

for all claims filed with SSA, and to transfer the receipt of new claims to the Department of Labor

(DOL) in 1973. 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 pre-1970 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
Black Lung Benefits Act

During FY 2005, DCMWC completed a

two-year project of updating Part B beneficiary

information using the same method by which

Part C beneficiary information is kept current.

This process enabled DCMWC to reduce

erroneous payments caused, for example, by

incorrect addresses.

Black Lung

Disability Trust Fund

The Black Lung Disability 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, 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 2005, the

Trust Fund received a total of $609.9 million in tax

revenues. An additional $3.3 million was

collected from RMOs in interim benefits, fines,

penalties, and interest. Total receipts of the Trust

Fund in FY 2005 were nearly $1.1 billion,

including $446 million in repayable advances

from the Department of 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.

Total Trust Fund disbursements during

FY 2005 were almost $1.1 billion. These

expenditures included $329.9 million for income

and medical benefits, $674.9 million for interest

payments on repayable advances from the

Treasury, and $56.9 million to administer the

program ($32.6 million in OWCP direct costs and

$24.3 million for legal adjudication and various

financial management and investigative support

provided by the Office of the Solicitor, Office of

Administrative Law Judges, Benefits Review

Board (BRB), Office of the Inspector General, and

the Department of the Treasury).

Central Medical Bill Processing

During FY 2005, the Black Lung program began

utilizing the OWCP centralized medical bill

processing services contract with Lockheed

Martin Information Technology (LMIT) and

Affiliated Computer Services (ACS). The service

is called Central Bill Processing (CBP). The CBP

service includes:

The ACS Web portal, which provides medical

facilities with Internet service with convenient,

around-the-clock access to DCMWC information

and services. This portal reduced the number of

inquiries and services handled by telephone,

allowing increased services to providers at no

additional cost to DCMWC. The Web portal also

has restricted-access features that enable providers

to inquire about medical authorization, eligibility,

and bill status, as well as provider enrollment.

The Prescription Drug Claim System provides

around-the-clock pharmacy point-of-sale and

paper pharmacy bill processing, information

management and a full complement of clinical

systems and services. These include prospective

and retrospective drug utilization review,

physician profiling, utilization reporting and prior

authorization.

Stored Image Retrieval, a web-based application

which provides an efficient way to retrieve stored

information and to access on-line audit reports.

Omni-Track, a multi-purpose correspondence

tracking system for claimant and provider

inquiries, as well as medical bill processing.

From October 1, 2004, through February 5,

2005, DCMWC’s contract with Computer Sciences

Corporation (CSC) provided the resources to

operate and maintain DCMWC’s Automated

Support Package (ASP). The ASP included the

client-server computer system, data processing

operations, medical bill processing,

telecommunications support, and certain

administrative functions. CSC continues to do

18 19
processing for DCMWC’s Claimant and Payment

System and the Black Lung Accounting System

using ASP software, which still resides in a clientserver environment.

During FY 2005, DCMWC completed the

processing of 366,528 medical bills.

Performance Assessment

A review of DCMWC was conducted in 2003

using the Program Assessment Rating Tool.

While the Black Lung program achieved a rating

of “Moderately Effective,” noting 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 2 percent) erroneous

payment rate, a number of recommendations

were made 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 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 2005, an independent

consulting firm initiated an evaluation of the Black

Lung program’s outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and

efficiency in order to compare them to those of

similar compensation programs. The evaluation

included site visits to Black Lung district offices,

interviews with stakeholders and state workers’

compensation officials, and observation of the

program’s accountability review of one district

office.

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 $446 million from the Treasury to pay

the balance of the FY 2005 interest due. By the end

of FY 2005, the Trust Fund’s cumulative debt to

the Treasury was $9.2 billion. Since benefit payouts 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 in order 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 $675

million at the end of FY 2005.

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. Representative Ron Lewis of

Kentucky introduced the bill on September 27,

2005, and it was referred to the House Ways and

Means Committee as HR 3915.

Government Performance

Results Act

In FY 2005, 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 10 percent over the FY 2001

established baseline 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.

20 21

Black Lung Benefits Act

Management Of SSA

Part B Black Lung Claims

FY 2005

Professional And Timely Claims Maintenance Services

Provided To Part B Claimants By DCMWC Included:

Completing Over 10,000 Maintenance Actions, With

Average Completion Time Of Less Than One Week

From Notification.

Managing The Expenditure Of More Than $346

Million In Benefits.

DCMWC Was Responsible For Over 46,000 Active Part B Cases.
22 23

Black Lung Benefits Act

In FY 2005, 80.6 percent of claims were

resolved with no pending requests for further

action (against a target of 76.5 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 323

days in FY 2004 to 259 days in FY 2005. As a result

of this improvement, the program set its goal for

FY 2006 at 250 days. The number of new claims

increased from 4,489 during FY 2004 to 4,567 in FY

2005. The number of claims awaiting issuance of a

Schedule for the Submission of Additional

Evidence by a district director rose slightly from

1,770 at the end of FY 2004 to 1,801 at the end of

FY 2005. However, this was offset by a slight

decline in claims awaiting issuance of a PDO – the

next stage in the claims adjudication process –

from 1,379 to 1,304.

Operation and Maintenance of

Automated Support Package

DCMWC’s Automated Support Package (ASP) is

provided through a contract with Computer

Science Corporation. The ASP includes a clientserver computer system for all black lung claims,

statistical and data processing, medical bills

processing, telecommunications support, and

administrative functions.

During FY 2005, DCMWC transferred

medical bill processing to Affiliated Computer

Systems, an action outlined earlier in the report.

In addition, DCMWC automated the transmission

of payment files to the Treasury Department. At

the end of FY 2005, DCMWC began planning to

convert ASP’s database to conform to ESA’s

Enterprise Architecture.

Compliance Assistance

Section 423 of the Black Lung Benefits Act requires

that each coal mine operator subject to the Act

secure payment of any benefits liability by either

qualifying as a self-insurer 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 2005 estimates by DOL’s

Mine Safety and Health Administration, there

were 2,093 active coal mine operators subject to

the requirements of the Act. From the inception of

the Act, the Secretary of Labor has had the

authority to authorize a coal mine operator to selfinsure after an analysis of the company’s

application and supporting documents. At the

close of FY 2005, 70 active companies were

authorized by the Secretary of Labor to self-insure.

 These self-insurance authorizations cover

approximately 680 subsidiaries and affiliated

companies.

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-mailed

inquiries from operators and insurance carriers,

and evaluates requests for self-insurance.

During FY 2005, the RO section sent form

letters to 584 coal mine operators reminding them

of their statutory requirement to insure and stay

insured against their potential liability for black

lung benefits. Of these, 390 were found to be

insured, 51 were insured through a parent entity

or not engaged in coal mining, and 53 uninsured

companies required additional assistance. Thirtytwo letters were returned unclaimed. The

remaining 58 were delivered with no response,

returned for a better address, 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 2005, DCMWC received

1,561 reports of new or renewed policies.

DCMWC also added the insurance reporting

instruction form to its website.

During FY 2005, the project to improve the

reporting of medical evaluations that DCMWC is

required to offer to all miners who file claims for

benefits continued, with District Directors and

national office staff making visits to physicians

and clinics. These visits included reviews of the

physician’s written evaluations of the medical

information obtained during the complete

pulmonary evaluation and suggestions for

improving and standardizing the evaluations.

Litigation

COURTS OF APPEALS

During FY 2005, the courts of appeals issued 46

decisions in cases arising under the Black Lung

Benefits Act. Fifty-five new appeals were filed.

The following summarizes the most significant

appellate decisions, grouped by their particular

issue and location in the CFR.

Time Limit for Appeal: 30 U.S.C. § 932(a)

Incorporating 33 U.S.C. § 921(c). A party

adversely affected or aggrieved by a final Benefits

Review Board order may seek review of that order

by filing a petition for review in the appropriate

court of appeals within 60 days of “issuance” of

the Board’s order. Relying on the Board’s

regulations governing issuance, service, and

appeal of decisions, the Fourth Circuit concluded

in Mining Energy, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 391 F.3d

571 (4th Cir. 2004), that the 60-day appeal period
absence of good cause.” In Smith v. Martin

County Coal Corp., 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-71

(2004), the Board addressed whether the

limitations may be waived by agreement of the

parties. It held that the limitations are

mandatory and may not be waived. The Board

reasoned that the regulations require an

administrative law judge to exclude evidence in

excess of the limitations unless the proponent of

the excess evidence establishes good cause for its

submission.

Collateral Estoppel. The doctrine of collateral

estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an

issue previously decided against it in an earlier

action. In Polly v. D & K Coal Company, 23 Black

Lung Rep. 1-79 (2005), the ALJ found the

responsible coal miner operator was precluded

from contending that the miner did not suffer

from black lung disease when defending a claim

filed by the miner’s survivor because the

operator had lost that issue when benefits were

awarded in the miner’s claim. The Board held

that the ALJ erred by not considering the

operator’s argument that application of collateral

estoppel was unfair because it had little incentive

to vigorously litigate the miner’s claim. The

benefits awarded the miner were offset entirely

by his state award. The Board reasoned that

under established precedent, a fact-finder has

discretion not to apply the doctrine if the party to

24 25

Black Lung Benefits Act

begins when the Board files its decision with the

Clerk of the Board. In reaching this conclusion,

the court rejected the Director’s and the

employer’s argument that issuance includes

service of the decision on the parties. Thus, the

court held that the Board’s failure to serve the

employer’s counsel with its decision did not

prevent the jurisdictional appeal period from

running.

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. In Roberts & Schaefer

Co. v. Director, OWCP, 400 F.3d 992 (7th Cir. 2005),

the Seventh Circuit construed these provisions

and held that the “limitations period does not

begin to run until the claimant is informed either

that his respiratory or pulmonary impairment is

‘pneumoconiosis’ or that the impairment arose

out of exposure to coal dust.” In so holding, the

court rejected the employer’s argument that a

diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease or emphysema alone, even if later found

to have arisen from coal mine employment,

triggers the limitations period. Because the miner

filed his claim before he received a medical

determination satisfying the statute’s

prerequisites, the court concluded that he timely

filed his claim.

Duty to Adequately Consider Medical Evidence.

 Two decisions emphasized the fact-finder’s

responsibility to critically evaluate the medical

evidence when making claim determinations

under the Black Lung Benefits Act. In Killman v.

Director, OWCP, 415 F.3d 716 (7th Cir. 2005), the

Seventh Circuit vacated an ALJ’s decision where,

in adjudicating whether the miner was totally

disabled, the ALJ did not adequately consider

whether the physicians whose opinions he relied

upon to deny the claim knew the miner’s job

duties. The court noted that “an ALJ may not

reasonably rely on medical opinions that are

predicated on a misunderstanding of the

claimant’s job requirements.” Accordingly, the

court remanded the case for further consideration

of the evidence. And in Martin v. Ligon Preparation

Co., 400 F.3d 302 (6th Cir. 2005), the Sixth Circuit

concluded that the ALJ’s weighing of the medical

opinion testimony was inconsistent with the

underlying factual record. There, the ALJ relied

upon two physicians who testified that if the

miner had pneumoconiosis, they would expect to

see certain objective testing results. The record

contained precisely those results, but the ALJ did

not explain why the physicians’ conclusions were

nonetheless valid in light of those results.

Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the

ALJ for further explanation.

State Insurance Guaranty Fund Liability. In Boyd

and Stevenson Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 407 F.3d

663 (4th Cir. 2005), the miner successfully

prosecuted his claim for benefits. His most recent

coal-mine employer’s insurance carrier paid his

benefits until the carrier was declared insolvent;

thereafter, the Virginia Property and Casualty

Insurance Guaranty Association assumed

payments in the carrier’s stead. After the

miner’s death, his widow filed a claim for

survivor’s benefits. The ALJ awarded benefits

but found that the Association was not the liable

entity because the widow filed her claim long

after the court-ordered time period for filing

claims against the Association had expired.

Instead, the ALJ found that the miner’s nextmost-recent-coal-mine employer (who was

solvent and insured) was liable for the widow’s

benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the

ALJ’s decision, but the Fourth Circuit disagreed.

Applying principles of insurance law, the court

concluded that the Association could not “bar

recovery by creating a technical defense” — the

time limit on filing claims — “impossible for” the

widow to satisfy. Accordingly, it held that the

Association was liable for the widow’s benefits.

BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD

During FY 2005, DOL filed over 625 pleadings

with the Benefits Review Board. The Board

issued several decisions that significantly affect

the Secretary’s administration of the benefits

program. The following summarizes some of

these decisions, categorized by issue.

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 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
Responsible Coal Mine Operator Beneficiaries in

Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 5,863 5,562

 Medical Benefits Only 1,355 1,146

Number of Employees

(FTE Staffing Used) 210 199

OWCP Administrative Expenditures** $ 32.0 M $ 32.2 M

Total Compensation and

Benefit Payments*** $ 346.9 M $ 329.9 M

Trust Fund Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 39,077 36,325

 Medical Benefits Only 4,437 3,636

26 27

*Part C claims only.

**Excludes DOL and Department of Treasury support costs of $24.5 million in FY 2004

and $24.8 million in FY 2005, respectively. Also excludes interest on the Trust Fund debt.

***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*

Black Lung Benefits Act

be estopped lacked financial incentive to litigate

the earlier case and future suits were not

foreseeable.

Subsequent Claims by Survivors. The program

regulations provide that a survivor’s claim filed

more than one year after the denial of a prior

survivor’s claim must also be denied unless two

conditions are met: (1) at least one of the grounds

on which the prior claim was denied (referred to

as the “applicable conditions of entitlement”)

must be unrelated to the miner’s physical

condition at the time of death; and (2) the claimant

must establish that at least one of the applicable

conditions of entitlement has changed since the

prior claim was denied. In practical effect, this

means that in order to have a subsequent claim

adjudicated, the survivor’s prior claim must have

been denied on at least one ground that is capable

of change, and such a change must have occurred

since the denial. The Board addressed this rule in

two decisions in FY 2005. In Tucker v. Director,

OWCP, 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-43 (2004), the Board

held that a surviving divorced spouse’s

subsequent claim must be denied because her first

claim had been denied based solely on her failure

to establish that she was dependent on the miner,

a condition of entitlement that is not subject to

change after the miner’s death. In Boden v. G.M. &

W. Coal Company, 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-39 (2004),

the Board held that because the survivor’s first

claim was denied solely on grounds related to the

miner’s physical condition, her second claim must

be denied as well.

 FY 2004 FY 2005
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

29
30 31

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Longshore

Benefit Expenditures

IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS*

 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

$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 $601.4 million in

Calendar Year (CY) 2004, a 5 percent increase

compared to CY 2003.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, total expenditures

for program operations and the administration of

LHWCA and its extensions were $25.5 million, of

which $10.5 million were the direct costs of

OWCP. The remaining $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 99 people in the national office and 11

district offices.

During FY 2005, approximately 560 selfinsured employers and insurance carriers

reported 24,980 lost-time injuries under the Act. At

year's end, 14,418 maritime and other workers

were in compensation payment status.

There continued to be a major increase in

attention focused on Longshore program

operations related to the Defense Base Act (DBA).

The increased interest in DBA is primarily a 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 Iraq are reported to the

New York DLHWC District Office, where claim

files are maintained, provisions of the Act are

enforced, and dispute resolution services offered.

Total claims filed under DBA in FY 2005 were

4,944, more than double the number filed in FY

2004.

Longshore Special Fund

The Special Fund under the Longshore Act 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 Act 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, under sections

 CALENDAR YEAR**

disease related to employment. Survivor benefits also are provided if the workrelated 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 a variety of other employees through the

following extensions to the Act:

The Defense Base Act 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

39(c) and 8(g) for providing rehabilitation

assistance to persons covered under the Act, and

under section 7(e) to pay the cost of medical

examinations.

The Special Fund is financed through

fines and penalties levied under the Act; $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 District of

Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act

(DCCA) is also administered by OWCP.

Payments to and from this fund apply only to the

DCCA.

The LHWCA Special Fund paid $134.6

million in benefits in FY 2005, of which $122.4

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

FY 2005 expenditures from the DCCA Special

Fund totaled $10.6 million, of which $9.8 million

was for second injury cases.

Government Performance

Results Act

In FY 2005, 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 fourteen percent versus the FY 2002

baseline the average time required to resolve

disputed issues in LHWCA program contested

cases, from an average of 285 days in FY 2002 to

245 days in FY 2005.

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 to

reach amicable agreement and thereby avoid the

time and expense required by formal litigation. In

FY 2005, the district offices conducted 2,778

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.

In light of the program’s success in

meeting its GPRA targets in the previous two

years, DLHWC changed its FY 2005 target to

reduce the time it takes to resolve claim disputes

from the originally planned 268 days (six percent

below the FY 2002 baseline) to 245 days (14

percent below FY 2002 baseline). The program

failed to meet the target primarily because a

higher proportion of disputed cases required

referral to the OALJ for formal hearings,

increasing overall processing times. In addition, a

correction in coding inconsistencies in some of the

DLHWC district offices resulted in a slight

increase in the average number of days required

to resolve disputes at the district office level. In FY

2005, disputed issues covered by this measure

were resolved in an average of 254 days, 9 days

above the target of 245 days.

To ensure that the goals of this indicator

remain ambitious, OWCP expanded the scope of

the Longshore program’s dispute resolution

measurement in FY 2005 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. 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

During 2005, a review of DLHWC was conducted

using the Program Assessment Rating Tool. The

Longshore program achieved a rating of

“Adequate” and a number of recommendations

were made to improve the program’s

performance and efficiency. These included

identifying needed reforms to strengthen the

LHWCA, evaluating the automated claims

system to identify more effective alternatives for

tracking the benefit delivery services of employers

and carriers and to allow comparisons with

similar programs, and eliminating shortcomings

identified in a 2004 audit by strengthening the

processes and controls in the program’s

disbursement systems. By the close of FY 2005,

the Longshore program had implemented

internal controls to strengthen its disbursement

program.

 FISCAL YEAR

DCCA LHWCA

 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

*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 1996-FY 2005

IN MILLIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLARS*
34 35

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Claims Management

and Compliance Assistance

Activities

The number of Defense Base Act injury and death

claims from civilian contractors in Iraq and

Afghanistan continued to grow in FY 2005, with

claims totaling 3,411, of which 296 involved the

death of the worker. Between FY 2003 and FY

2005, a total of 7,821 DBA claims were filed,

including 513 death claims, of which 4,736 claims

(449 deaths) originated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In response to the continuing high level of

claim activity arising from the Middle East, the

Longshore program continued to hold

educational seminars, meetings with the

contracting agencies, and meetings of industry

leaders. These important outreach activities

continue to enhance the public’s understanding of

the coverage requirements, claim responsibilities,

and educational responsibilities of contracting

agencies, contractors, and insurers.

To follow-up on DLHWC’s upgrades

from the previous year, significant new

information was added to or enhanced on the

Longshore program website during FY 2005,

including Compliance Assistance resources for the

public, enhanced electronic form submission

capabilities, Frequently Asked Questions for

Special Fund recipients, detailed information

about the Defense Base Act which covers defense

contractor employees working overseas in such

projects as the Iraq rebuilding efforts, and legal

briefs important to system participants.

SRA, a private consulting firm, was

retained to perform a study of the Longshore Case

Management System (LCMS) to evaluate a

potential upgrading of the system to allow for

automated data input from the industry,

standardization of data elements following

industry leads, and the ability to benchmark and

compare outcomes with other workers’

compensation systems. 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

performance monitoring or measurement system.

Today’s managerial demands and regulatory

responsibilities require an automated system

capable of more than the LCMS can currently

deliver.

The study was initiated in January 2005,

with the final report and recommendations

submitted in January 2006. 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 include 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.

Security Requirements from

Authorized Insurance Carriers

During FY 2005, DLHWC implemented new

regulations to enhance the financial security of the

Longshore program by reforming the

methodology for measuring and collecting

security deposits from the insurance industry. A

final rule (70 Fed Reg. 43224 (2005) (to be codified

at 20 C.F.R. § 701 and 703)) took effect on August

25, 2005. The rule addresses the problem of

insurance carrier insolvency and seeks to protect

the Special Fund from having to assume benefit

obligations as a result of such insolvencies. The

regulations require LHWCA insurance carriers

either to demonstrate that their obligations are

financially secure or to deposit security with

OWCP. Under the rule, OWCP determines the

amount of a required security deposit by

considering factors such as the availability of State

guaranty funds, the carrier’s financial stability, and

the carrier’s unsecured LHWCA financial

obligations. The regulations excuse the deposit

requirement for the most financially sound

carriers. The smooth transition reflected

industry’s acceptance of the need for this reform.

DLHWC is committed to reviewing the states’

legislation each year to ensure that the required

deposits are kept consistent with security needs.

Litigation

During FY 2005, the Supreme Court defined the

term “vessel” for purposes of determining

coverage under the LHWCA and the Jones Act.

The courts of appeals published six decisions

arising under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act. Important points from these

cases, grouped by issue, are summarized below.

SUPREME COURT

Definition of a “Vessel.” In Stewart v. Dutra

Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005), the Supreme

Court addressed whether a watercraft is a

“vessel” for purposes of the LHWCA and the

Jones Act. The LHWCA excludes from coverage

“a master or member of a crew of any vessel,”

thereby establishing who may claim coverage as a

seaman under the Jones Act. The Court adopted

the definition of vessel appearing in 1 U.S.C. § 3,

that is any contrivance used or capable of being

used as a means of transportation on water.

Applying that definition, the Court held that a

dredge digging a trench beneath Boston Harbor

for the Ted Williams tunnel was a “vessel” and

that therefore the maritime engineer injured on it

in the course of his employment was entitled to

proceed with his Jones Act claim. The Court

explained that the dredge was a vessel because it

carried machinery, equipment, and a crew over

water. The Supreme Court concluded that a

vessel “is any watercraft practically capable of

maritime transportation, regardless of its primary

purpose or state of transit at a particular moment.”

 Thus, the maritime engineer was a crew member

of a vessel and could proceed with his Jones Act

claim - despite the fact the dredge had no means

of self-propulsion and lay idle at the time his

injury occurred.

Other Supreme Court Action. The United States

Supreme Court also denied certiorari in two Ninth

Circuit LHWCA cases. The Court left intact the

Ninth Circuit’s “last responsible employer”

decision in Metropolitan Stevedore Company v.
36 37

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Crescent Wharf and Warehouse, Co. (William Price),

339 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S.

940 (2004). It also declined to review the Ninth

Circuit’s decision in Stevedoring Services of America

v. Price, 382 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544

U.S. 960 (2005), in which the Court of Appeals

ruled that: (1) where a claimant is entitled to

receive two concurrent awards, the maximum

weekly compensation rate established by section

6(b)(1) applies to each individual award and not to

the total combined amount of compensation

received; and (2) where a claimant worked more

than 75 percent of the workdays during the

measuring year, average weekly wage is correctly

determined under section 10(a) rather than section

10(c) because he has worked “substantially the

whole of the year.”

COURTS OF APPEALS

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in

Stewart v. Dutra, the Second Circuit affirmed the

denial of a widow’s claim for LHWCA death

benefits in Uzdavines v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 418 F.3d

138 (2nd Cir. 2005), because her husband’s fatal

exposure to asbestos took place while he

maintained the engine of a “bucket dredge.”

Because her husband had worked on a “vessel,”

the Jones Act, as opposed to the LHWCA,

provided coverage for his death. The “bucket

dredge” constituted a “vessel” under Stewart

because it transported equipment and workers

across water to perform its channel- deepening

function. The Supreme Court’s decision

superseded the Second Circuit’s test articulated in

Tonnensen v. Yonkers Contracting Co., 82 F.3d 30

(2nd Cir. 1996) (a floating structure does not

construction was complete, the site would serve a

maritime purpose. Relying on BoomtownBelle

Casino v. Bazor, 313 F.3d 300 (5th Cir. 2002), the

Court held that the location of claimant’s injury

was not a situs covered by the statute because the

site had never previously been maritime in nature

and was not yet part of navigable waters at the

time of the accident.

Coverage: Status. Two Second Circuit decisions

address the requirement that a worker must be

injured while engaged in maritime employment

in order to be covered by the LHWCA. The Court

examined section 2(3)’s status requirement in

Uzdavines v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 418 F.3rd 138 (2nd

Cir. 2005), and Lockheed Martin Corporation, ACE

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

Uzdavines, the deceased employee had worked on

land for 35 years before spending 3 to 4 weeks

working on a bucket dredge. The Court affirmed

the Board and ALJ’s decisions that the status

inquiry was properly resolved without

consideration of the decedent’s work history prior

to his employment on the dredge. The dispositive

question was whether the decedent had a

substantial connection to the dredge, a vessel, at

the time of the injury. The Court concluded that

the employee’s connection was substantial, both

in duration and nature, not transitory or sporadic

and that he was not engaged in maritime

employment covered by the LHWCA.

qualify as a vessel if the “transportation function

performed by the [purported vessel is] merely

incidental to the primary purpose of serving as a

work platform”). Thus, pursuant to Stewart, so long

as a watercraft can be used as a means of

transportation over water, even if only as a matter of

practical possibility, it is a vessel in navigation, and

on-board injuries to its crew members are not

covered by the LHWCA.

Coverage: Situs – Navigable Waters. The Second

Circuit held that Cayuga Lake is part of the

navigable waters of the United States and, thus, a

covered situs under LHWCA section 3(a). Lockheed

Martin Corp. ACE USA v. Morganti, 412 F.3d 407 (2nd

Cir. 2005). Although Lockheed Martin argued that

economic conditions made commercial shipping

unprofitable, and therefore made the lake not

navigable, the Court noted that the lake was

connected by locks to the Erie Canal system and was

physically capable of supporting commercial water

traffic including shipping. Since it was capable of

being used for commerce, Cayuga Lake was

navigable for purposes of the LHWCA. The Second

Circuit also held that because Morganti drowned in

navigable waters, he was covered by the LHWCA

regardless of his duties or activities pursuant to the

Supreme Court’s decision in Director, OWCP v. Perini

N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297 (1983).

Coverage: Situs – Adjoining Area. In Tarver v. BoMac Contractors, Inc., 384 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2004), cert.

denied, 544 U.S. 948 (2005), the Fifth Circuit held that

an excavation site was not an area adjoining

navigable waters and therefore not a covered situs

under LHWCA section 3(a). Tarver suffered serious

injuries when he was pinned against a scaffold by an

80-foot beam. His employer was building two new

barge slips on vacant, dry land along the Intracoastal

Waterway in Louisiana. At the time of the accident,

the land between the slip holes and the water had

not yet been removed, and Tarver was working as a

welder on the land side of the excavation. The Fifth

Circuit rejected the claimant’s argument that when

In Morganti, a Lockheed Martin test

engineer spent 30-40 percent of his work time

(one-and-a half to two days per week) on a

research barge moored to two buoys in Lake

Cayuga performing underwater tests of sonar

equipment to be used by the US Navy. The barge

could disconnect from the buoys within minutes

but had no independent means of propulsion. To

get to the barge, Morganti was ferried from shore

in a shuttle boat. He drowned when he fell into

the lake while untying the shuttle boat in

preparation for a return trip from the barge to

land. The Court found that the barge was floating

and not fixed, distinguishing a fixed structure

directly supported by rigid posts from the barge

which was anchored by chains and ropes to a

mooring buoy. The Court also rejected

Lockheed’s argument that Morganti was

excluded from LHWCA coverage because he was

a data processor. The Court agreed with the

Director that Morganti performed analytical

duties when reviewing the sonar equipment’s test

results and therefore did not fall within the data

processing exclusion. Thus, Morganti, unlike

Uzdavines, was engaged in maritime

employment and was covered by the LHWCA.

Abbott Doctrine – Entitlement to Compensation

for Total Disability While Participating in

Vocational Rehabilitation. The Ninth Circuit

joined the Fourth and Fifth Circuits in adopting

the Director’s view that a claimant may be found

entitled to compensation for total disability

although physically capable of performing some

work if participation in a vocation rehabilitation

program precludes him from engaging in

otherwise suitable employment. In General

Construction Co. v. Castro, 401 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.
38 39

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

2005), the Ninth Circuit followed the rule

established in Louisiana Ins. Guaranty Ass’n v.

Abbott, 40 F.3d 122 (5th Cir. 1994). Castro, a pile

driver, injured his right knee resulting in a

permanent partial disability that prevented him

from resuming his usual work. His vocational

rehabilitation counselor approved a plan for two

years of college classes and stated that it would be

very difficult to work at the same time. The Court

held that Castro was entitled to total disability

benefits while he participated in vocational

rehabilitation.

Attorney Fees. The Fourth Circuit joined the Fifth

Circuit in holding that, under LWHCA section

28(b), liability for an injured worker’s attorney fees

shifts to the employer only if all of that section’s

requirements are satisfied. These requirements

include the district director holding an informal

conference and issuing a written recommendation. In Virginia International Terminals, Inc.,

v. Edwards, 398 F. 3d 313 (4th Cir. 2005), the

employer voluntarily paid temporary total

disability benefits. Thereafter, the claimant’s

attorney requested a conference, arguing that the

claimant was owed three additional days of

compensation because the benefit period should

have started on the date of injury. The employer

paid the additional compensation without

attending a conference or receiving a

recommendation. Although the BRB awarded

claimant’s counsel a fee to be paid by the

employer for the work he performed before the

ALJ, the Fourth Circuit reversed holding that

because an informal conference was never held

and a written recommendation never issued, the

fee award was not authorized by the Act.

because the worker entered into third-party

settlements without the prior written approval of

the employer. In the death benefits claim, the

employer convinced the ALJ that the worker

should be excluded from LHWCA coverage as a

member of a crew of a vessel. The Court found

that collateral estoppel did not apply because the

stipulation in the benefits claim was limited to that

claim only. The Court further found that judicial

estoppel did not apply because no one was misled

by the stipulation in the disability claim, and it did

not compromise judicial integrity.

Procedural: Fifth Amendment Due Process. The

Ninth Circuit held in Castro that the employer was

not denied due process when the District Director

implemented the claimant’s vocational

rehabilitation program before affording it an ALJ

evidentiary hearing on the necessity of the

program. The Court reasoned that liability for

compensation under the Abbott doctrine did not

arise until the claimant sought benefits during his

vocational rehabilitation program. Since the

employer disputed claimant’s entitlement to those

benefits, the employer received an ALJ hearing

before it was required to pay claimant permanent

benefits. At that hearing, the claimant established

that his participation in the rehabilitation program

precluded his performing suitable alternative

employment and entitled him to benefits. Thus,

implementation of the rehabilitation plan by itself

did not automatically trigger the employer’s

payment of compensation.

Procedural: Statutory Right to an ALJ Hearing.

The employer in Castro also contended that both

LHWCA section 19(c) and the Administrative

Procedure Act guaranteed it an ALJ hearing

addressing the reasonableness and necessity of a

vocational rehabilitation plan before the District

Average Weekly Wage. In Castro, the Ninth

Circuit affirmed the ALJ’s determination that

LHWCA section 10(a) was the applicable

provision to calculate the claimant’s average

weekly wage. The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its

holding in Matulic v. Director, OWCP, 154 F.3d 1052

(9th Cir. 1998), that section 10(a) is presumed to

apply when a claimant works more than 75

percent of the workdays of the measuring year. In

this case, Castro had worked for approximately

77.4 percent of the applicable workdays.

The Fifth Circuit did not adopt Matulic’s

bright line test for presumptive application of

section 10(a), but in Gulf Best Electric, Inc. v. Methe v.

Director, OWCP, 396 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2004), held

that section 10(a) did apply where the claimant

worked 91 percent of the workdays in the year

prior to his injury. In doing so, it cited Matulic

favorably and noted that over-compensation is

built into the system and therefore does not justify

applying section 10(c) when section 10(a) may be

applied.

Procedural: Collateral and Judicial Estoppel. In

Uzdavines, the Second Circuit held that the

employer was not estopped from contesting

LHWCA coverage of the deceased worker in his

widow’s death benefits case even though it had

stipulated to coverage in the course of the

worker’s disability claim. The disability claim

was found barred by LHWCA section 33(g)

Director entered an award of such a plan. The

Ninth Circuit held that because LHWCA section

39(c) authorizes the Secretary to direct and

approve vocational rehabilitation and the

Secretary has delegated that authority to the

district director, the employer was not entitled to

an ALJ hearing on the reasonableness of Castro’s

plan prior to its implementation.

Procedural: Timeliness of Petition for Review.

In Methe, the Fifth Circuit applied the plain

language of LHWCA section 21(c) and required

that a petition for review of a Board decision be

filed within 60 days. Although the employer filed

a timely petition for review, the claimant filed a

petition 70 days after the Board issued its decision

and order. The claimant sought review of a

determination that the average-weekly-wage

calculation should not include employer

contributions to his retirement and health

insurance funds. Although the claimant called his

petition a “cross-application to enforce” the Board

order, the Court found that in substance, the filing

sought to reverse the Board’s order on the

contested point. As such, it amounted to a petition

for review and was barred by section 21(c)

because it was not timely filed. The Court also

rejected the claimant’s argument that because a

petition for modification of the compensation

award had already been filed, the Court would

eventually have to hear the issue and should

review the Board’s holding in the interest of equity

or judicial efficiency.
40 41

Number of Employees

(FTE Staffing Used) 101 99

Administrative Expenditures* $ 12.5 M $ 12.5 M

Lost-Time Injuries Reported 22,646 24,980

Total Compensation Paid** $718.2 M $750.3 M

 Wage-Loss and Survivor Benefits $516.9 M $540.3 M

 Medical Benefits $201.3 M $210.0 M

Sources of Compensation Paid

 Insurance Companies** $262.8 M $278.9 M

 Self-Insured Employers** $309.8 M $322.5 M

 LHWCA Special Fund $135.2 M $134.6 M

 

 DCCA Special Fund $ 10.9 M $ 10.6 M

 DOL Appropriation $ 2.7 M $ 2.6 M

*Direct administrative costs to OWCP only; excludes DOL support costs of $17.4

million in FY 2004 and $15.0 million in FY 2005.

**Figures are for CY 2003 and CY 2004, 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

Permanent Partial Disability – Shoulder is an

Unscheduled Injury. In Keenan v. Director for the

Benefits Review Board, 392 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2004),

the Ninth Circuit addressed whether a

longshoreman who injured his shoulder should

be compensated for a permanent partial

scheduled injury to the arm under section 8(c)(1),

an unscheduled permanent partial loss of wageearning capacity under section 8(c)(21), or a

nominal “Rambo” award. First, the Court

reaffirmed its “situs of the injury” rule, under

which an injury to a body part not listed in the

section 8(c)(1)-(20) schedule must be compensated

as a section 8(c)(21) unscheduled injury even

though the symptoms may extend beyond the

injured area and cause impairment to a scheduled

body part. The Court implicitly rejected the

argument that the shoulder is part of the arm for

purposes of compensating permanent partial

disability and affirmed the denial of a scheduled

award. Following the shoulder injury, the

employee was reassigned to a position as a marine

clerk where his post-injury wages were

significantly higher than those before his injury.

Continuing medical restrictions required that he

pass up a promotion to foreman however.

Because the LHWCA only obligates the employer

to compensate the injured worker up to the level

of his pre-injury wages and not for an inability to

earn hypothetical wages that he would have

enjoyed but for the injury, the Court held that

claimant was also not entitled to benefits under

section 8(c)(21) on account of the missed

promotion. However, a majority of the panel held

that the employee had significant potential to

suffer diminished wage-earning capacity in the

future as a result of the injury and therefore

reversed the denial of a de minimis award of the

kind sanctioned in Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v.

Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 (1997).

 FY 2004 FY 2005
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 of the Act 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

DEEOICís customers and stakeholders.

HHS, through its National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),

establishes procedures for estimating radiation

doses and develops guidelines to determine the

probability that a cancer was caused by workplace

exposure to radiation. 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 (SEC). 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. As of September 30, 2005,

SEC facilities, for certain workers and specified

timeframes, included three gaseous diffusion

plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Paducah,

Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio; an

underground nuclear test site on Amchitka

Island, Alaska; Mallinckrodt Chemical Works,

Destrehan Street Facility, St. Louis, Missouri; the

Iowa Army Ammunition Plant, Burlington,

Iowa; and the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

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.

The inventory of EEOICPA case files for

living employees and for qualified survivors of

deceased workers continued to grow. In FY

2005 alone, DOL created a total of 6,998 case files

(9,972 claims) for living or deceased employees

under Part B and 34,899 cases (39,830 claims)

under Part E.

The Final Adjudication Branch (FAB)

maintained its central office in Washington, D.C.,

with offices collocated with each district office.

To accommodate the Part E caseload in FY 2005,

FAB’s office space was increased and new staff

hired, doubling FAB’s size. The FAB provided

reviews of each recommended district office

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).

The EEOICPA initially included a Part D program that required DOE to

establish a system for contractor employees and their eligible survivors to seek DOE

assistance in obtaining state workers’ compensation benefits if the employee had

sustained a covered illness as a result of work-related exposure to a toxic substance at

a DOE facility. In the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375 (October 28, 2004), Congress abolished Part D of

EEOICPA, and created a new Part E program that was assigned to the Department

of Labor (DOL) to administer. Part E established a new system of federal payments

for DOE contractor employees, eligible survivors of such employees, and uranium

miners, millers, and ore transporters as defined by RECA Section 5.

As of the end of FY 2005, since the program’s inception, the Division of Energy

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) had provided over 15,000

employees or their families with compensation payments totaling nearly $1.2 billion

under Part B. In addition, the program had paid over $73.1 million for medical

expenses associated with the treatment of accepted medical conditions. In FY 2005

alone, nearly 4,000 employees or their families received Part B compensation of

$319.1 million, while $32.8 million was paid in covered medical benefits.

At the end of FY 2005, since Part E’s inception, DEEOIC had provided 1,535

employees or their families with Part E compensation payments exceeding

$194.3 million.
46 47

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

decision 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 2005, FAB scheduled

and conducted 656 oral hearings at locations near

claimants, issuing final decisions regarding the

claim and specific claimant challenges. The

DEEOIC continued to allow claimants to

challenge final FAB 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

Parts B and E of the EEOICPA are separate

programs with unique criteria for establishing

positive claims. Some workers may qualify for

both types of 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.

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, the 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.

DOL can move relatively quickly to

recommended decisions on cases involving

“specified cancers” at SEC facilities because the

Act provides a presumption that any of the

twenty-two listed cancers incurred by an SEC

worker was caused by radiation exposure at the

SEC facility.

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

2005, the district offices referred 3,073 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

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.
48 49

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

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.

In FY 2005, district offices issued 13,668

claim-level recommended decisions under Part B

and 2,792 claim-level recommended decisions

under Part E. The FAB issued 11,709 claim-level

final decisions under Part B and 2,105 claim-level

final decisions under Part E, significantly surpassing

the operational plan goals put in place for the

issuance of final agency decisions for Part B and Part

E claims. Under Part B, 4,319 claims (37 percent)

received approval, while 7,390 (63 percent) were

denied. Most Part B claims’ denials occurred

because the claimed condition was not covered

under the Act, the period of employment or claimed

facility were not covered under the Act, 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, 2,042 claims (97 percent)

received approval, while 63 (3 percent) were denied.

Part E Transfer

With Part E’s enactment, DOE transferred all Part D

cases (over 25,000) to DOL. Part D cases initially

were shipped to the Jacksonville District Office for

review and were then forwarded to the appropriate

district offices for processing. In instances where

claims had also been filed under Part B, case files

were merged into one Part B/Part E case. Claimants

were notified of this change and of the status and

locations of their case files.

DOL also quickly identified certain types of

claims that met specific, straightforward criteria

contained in the amendment itself for immediate

adjudication. Within two months of enactment,

DOL began providing compensation under the

newly established Part E, using preliminary

procedural guidance. On January 10, 2005, Assistant

Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards

Victoria A. Lipnic, along with Senator Lamar

Alexander, presented one of the first Part E

compensation payments of $125,000 to a

surviving widow of an employee who worked at

the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In

addition, DOL increased its district office staffing

to accommodate the influx of new Part E claims.

DOL successfully met Congress’s 120-day

deadline to prescribe regulations and to begin

implementing the new Part E. The Interim Final

Rule (IFR), published on June 8, 2005, directed the

Act’s administration and the claims adjudication

process. Prior to the issuance of the Part E IFR,

DOL paid over $55 million to 447 recipients.

Following the IFR’s publication, the National

Office finalized comprehensive procedural and

policy guidance for Part E and trained all DEEOIC

staff members nationwide to implement all

aspects of Part E claims.

In August 2005, DOL published a

procedure manual for Part E to address the full

scope of the EEOICPA, including definitions,

resource center roles, case management,

evidentiary requirements, wage loss/impairment

determinations, coordination with state workers’

compensation programs, and the related

adjudication processes. DEEOIC also issued

seven policy bulletins in FY 2005 to clarify the

administration of Part E. All district offices and

resource centers received the DEEOIC manuals

and bulletins and the DEEOIC web site made the

manuals and bulletins publicly available. New

forms were required to allow claimants

to file under Part E of the EEOICPA. Under the

new guidelines, DEEOIC changed old forms and

created new forms to accommodate Part E.

DEEOIC’s Energy Case Management

System (ECMS) was first deployed on July 31,

2001 to provide a standardized system to ensure

rapid online entry, maintenance, and tracking of

Energy worker claims submitted under the Act.

In FY 2005, DEEOIC rapidly expanded ECMS to

accommodate the new and different

requirements of Part E, and to track Part E

claims, activities, payments, and workload.

ECMS training, job aides, notes, and technical

support also was provided to staff.

In FY 2005, DEEOIC also initiated a tool

called the Site Exposure Matrices (SEM)

database which will house information from a

variety of sources, including DOE, former

worker medical survey programs, and

epidemiological studies, regarding toxic

substances present at major DOE sites, AWE

facilities, and the 4,000 uranium mines and mills

covered by RECA. The SEM also will contain

information on the types of illnesses affiliated

with exposure to particular biological or

chemical substances. Designed as a living

database that will be continually enhanced, the

SEM will serve as a valuable resource for DOL

claims examiners in assessing the types of toxic

exposures employees sustained as a result of

employment at DOE facilities. The SEM will

ease claimants’ evidentiary burdens and speed

the claims process.
50 51

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Funding

In FY 2005, DOL spent $60.5 million under Part B

and $34.7 million under Part E to administer

EEOICPA. These funds supported 245 full-time

equivalent (FTE) staff for Part B and 27 FTE for

Part E. Additional funding under Part B in the

amount of $47.3 million was transferred to

support activities at the Department of Health and

Human Services’ NIOSH.

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. A private contractor processed medical

bills to reduce overhead and to increase program

efficiency. 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.

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 two indicators achieved

under DOL’s GPRA goal to “minimize the

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

under Part B were as follows:

For initial processing of Part B claims for benefits,

DOL’s FY 2005 goal was to complete initial

processing in 80 percent of the cases within 120

days for cases from DOE facilities and in RECA

claims, and within 180 days for AWE, beryllium

vendor, and subcontractor cases (for which

employment and other critical information was

generally more difficult to obtain). Through the

efforts of the four district offices, timely initial

processing was completed in 81 percent of the

cases, exceeding the 80 percent goal.

In the processing of Part B final decisions through

the efforts of FAB, 95 percent of the decisions in FY

2005 were within the program standards, also in

excess of the goal of 80 percent.

The Labor Department, in an urgent response to

claimants whose cases had been transferred from

DOE to DOL and who had been waiting for up to

four years for a decision, also established a goal to

issue at least 1,200 Part E payments by the end of

FY 2005. As of September 30, 2005, DOL exceeded

that goal by making 1,535 payments totaling

$194.3 million in Part E compensation to eligible

claimants.

Services to Claimants

DEEOIC’s network of Resource Centers at major

DOE sites continued to afford assistance to current

or former DOE employees, surviving family

members, contractors and subcontractors, and

uranium workers who sought to file claims. In FY

2005, DEEOIC opened its twelfth Resource Center

in Amherst, New York to assist claimants in

completing the necessary claim forms. DOL’s

Most Efficient Organization (MEO) initiative

allowed resource centers to assume additional

responsibilities related to initial employment

verification and occupational history

development for Part E claims. In FY 2005,

resource centers processed 439 initial employment

verification requests and conducted 315

occupational history interviews.

In FY 2005, DEEOIC hosted 73 town hall

meetings in 37 locations throughout the country to

help educate the public about the Part E program.

As a result of the town hall meetings, Resource

Centers generated 566 new Part E claims and 485

Part B claims.

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;

current statistics; links to DOE, DOJ, and

NIOSH websites; and toll free numbers where

additional information and assistance could be

obtained. In FY 2005, DEEOIC posted the new

EEOICPA regulations, added a searchable

database of DEEOIC final decisions, created a

link to provide Part E information that included

the EEOICPA Part E procedure manual, and

added DEEOIC and NIOSH weekly web

statistics.

In order to provide improved medical

bill payment processes, OWCP retained the

services of Lockheed Martin Information

Technology/Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.

(ACS) in FY 2001 and the service was

implemented in DEEOIC in FY 2005. The use

of a central bill processing vendor allowed the

DEEOIC to provide a high level of service to

eligible employees and their medical providers

in FY 2005. DEEOIC issued detailed

procedures and conducted training for staff that

outlined the medical bill submission process,

electronic communication, prompt payment
53

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

52

issues, prior authorizations, and the use of the

ACS interactive web portal. ACS accessed

claimant data for determination of eligible

claimants and approved medical conditions, and

received and processed bills submitted for

authorized medical and travel expenses. ACS also

stored and maintained information pertinent to

provider enrollment, along with data and criteria

pertaining to procedures, drugs, diagnoses, and

payment history necessary for maintenance of the

system’s edit and audit criteria files. The use of a

centralized medical bill processing service in FY

2005 allowed DEEOIC to streamline its medical

payments and provide greater ease for claimants

seeking assistance and providers seeking

reimbursement for services rendered.

Under the new 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 (3) 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.

Statutory and

Regulatory Activities

As noted previously, EEOICPA was originally

enacted on October 30, 2000 and established a

federal compensation program (known as Part B

of the Act) that has been administered by DEEOIC

since its inception on July 31, 2001. The initial

version of EEOICPA also created a second

program (known as Part D of the Act) that

required DOE to establish a system by which

DOE contractor employees (and their eligible

survivors) could seek assistance from DOE in

obtaining state workers’ compensation benefits if

a Physicians Panel determined that the employee

in question had sustained a covered illness as a

result of work-related exposure to a toxic

substance at a DOE facility. A positive panel

finding that was accepted by DOE required DOE,

to the extent permitted by law, to order its

contractor not to contest the claim for state

workers’ compensation benefits.

In FY 2005, Congress amended EEOICPA

in Subtitle E of Title XXXI of the Ronald W. Reagan

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2005, Public Law 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811, 2178

(October 28, 2004), by abolishing Part D and

creating a new Part E (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7385s

through 7385s-15) that it assigned to DOL for

administration. Part E establishes a new system of

variable federal payments for DOE contractor

employees, uranium workers covered by section 5

of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and

eligible survivors of such employees. Congress

also amended several other provisions contained

in EEOICPA that applied to Part B and specified

that DOL was to prescribe regulations

implementing the amendments to EEOICPA and

commence administration of Part E within 210

days of its enactment.

Immediately following enactment of this

legislation, the EEOICPA Part E Interim Final Rule

Team was assembled and began analyzing the

numerous issues presented by this very complex

new legislation. The analysis led to development

of possible options for resolving each of the issues

that had been identified. An extensive series of

meetings then took place to determine which

option to adopt in regard to each issue. As these

determinations were being made, regulatory text

was being drafted to implement the selected

options. The EEOICPA Interim Final Rule was

signed by the Assistant Secretary for Employment

Standards on May 26, 2005, within the 210 day

deadline, and was published in the Federal Register

on June 8, 2005. 70 Fed. Reg. 33,590 (2005).

Litigation

Fink v. Chao, 395 F. Supp. 2d 625 (N.D. Ohio 2005),

was the first lawsuit brought by a plaintiff

challenging the denial of his claim for benefits

under Part B of EEOICPA. Fink asserted that he

had complied with the election of remedies

provision of the statute, found at 42 U.S.C. §

7385d(a), which provides that claimants are

ineligible for EEOICPA Part B benefits unless they

timely dismiss corresponding tort claims against

either a beryllium vendor or an atomic weapons

employer. He also asserted that DEEOIC had

violated his constitutional right to equal protection

by failing to adjudicate his claim the same way as

it had other similarly situated claimants. The

court agreed with the Secretary of Labor’s position

that Fink’s dismissal of his appeal from an adverse

summary judgment decision of an Ohio trial court

in his tort action against a beryllium vendor did

not satisfy the election of remedy requirement in

EEOICPA that he “dismiss such tort case.” The

court found that Fink was required to adhere to

the specific rules governing “dismissal” of the

tribunal where his tort action was pending, and

that under Ohio law, his dismissal of his appeal,

even though this may have terminated all further

proceedings in the case, resulted in the adverse

decision of the Ohio trial court becoming final and

did not dismiss the case itself. The court also

found that Fink’s equal protection claim was moot

as the government could not be said to

discriminate against a person by refusing to

provide statutory benefits to which he is not

entitled. Therefore, the court granted the

Secretary’s motion to dismiss Fink’s lawsuit under

F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
Number of Employees (FTE staffing Used) 240 245 27

Administrative Expenditures** $ 36.4 M $ 60.5 M $ 34.7 M

Claims Created 12,143 9,972 39,830

Recommended Decisions (Claims) 11,097 13,668 2,792

Final Decisions (Claims) 10,201 11,709 2,105

Number of Claims Approved (Final) 3,370 4,319 2,042

Total Lump Sum Compensation Payments $250.6 M $319.1 M $194.3 M

Number of Medical Bill Payments 36,077 70,251 328

Total Medical Payments*** $ 2 4.9 M $ 32.8 M $ 0.02 M

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

**Includes Department of Labor expenditures only; Part B excludes funds transferred to the Department of

Health and Human Services for that agency’s responsibilities under EEOICPA ($53.2 million in FY 2004 and

$47.3 million in FY 2005, respectively), while Part E excludes $0.2 million to fund an ombudsman position.

***Part B medical payments in FY 2005 represent payments made for cases accepted under both Part B and

Part E. Part E medical payments in FY 2005 represent payments made for Part E only.

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

Part B Part E*

54

 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2005
56 57

 Fiscal Year

Federal Employees' Compensation Rolls

FY 1996—FY 2005

(Cases at End-of-Year)

Table A1

1996

56,374

50,021

6,353

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

Roll Type

Total Periodic Roll

 Long-Term Disability

 Death

 Fiscal Year

Federal Employees' Compensation Program

Summary of Claims Activity

FY 1996—FY 2005

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

1996

175,052

150,204

75,829

74,375

24,689

159

20,392

7,951

7,101

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

FECA Tables A1 — A2
58 59

 Fiscal Year

Federal Employees' Compensation Program Obligations

FY 1996—FY 2005

($ thousands)

Table A3

1996

$2,062,325

1,984,209

1,375,808

481,833

126,568

78,116

65,145

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

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 1996—CBY 2005

($ thousands)

Table A4

1996

$1,840,811

547,141

256,210

163,986

140,729

N/A

116,141

89,407

58,136

58,926

61,069

349,066

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

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 12,971 13,590 11,028 19,858 20,898 30,348 29,212 43,278 47,528 39,525
60 61

Part C Black Lung Claims Adjudication

at the Initial Level

FY 2005

Table B1

Distribution of Part C

Black Lung Claims and Disbursements, by State

FY 2005

Table B2

1

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

2

 Active Medical Benefits Only (MBO) claims as of 9/30/05.

3

 Active claims in payment status, excluding MBO claims, as of 9/30/05.

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

33,424

149

2,028

3,812

6,457

7,007

1,000

770

285

11,800

1,628

16

244

31,056

17,761

5,126

2,169

89,709

349

44

6,639

237

10,471

146

362

4,624

856

128

420

28

4,279

2,371

4,005

3,396

158

53,401

3,778

628

136,002

40

897

50

20,795

1,701

4,076

49

42,752

1,590

109,355

444

2,589

451

631,552

MBO

Claims2

89

0

6

18

22

24

2

2

0

97

11

0

0

82

48

12

2

1,076

1

0

31

1

27

0

2

6

2

0

2

0

20

3

15

31

0

176

20

2

972

0

10

0

164

7

23

0

581

5

1,182

2

3

3

4,782

In Payment

3

1,078

11

152

208

306

491

83

69

16

893

173

1

17

1,344

841

273

77

5,112

24

3

404

26

491

12

30

220

40

11

40

7

307

130

234

349

6

3,090

177

40

11,638

3

124

6

1,169

128

289

6

3,681

83

8,218

36

182

21

42,370

Total Benefits

($ 000)

4

$8,395

86

1,183

1,619

2,383

3,824

646

537

125

6,953

1,347

8

132

10,465

6,548

2,125

599

39,809

187

23

3,146

202

3,824

93

234

1,713

311

86

311

54

2,391

1,012

1,822

2,718

47

24,062

1,378

311

90,631

23

956

47

9,103

997

2,250

47

28,664

646

63,996

280

1,417

163

$329,933

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

814

118

696

3,845

477

3,368

4,659

595

4,064

Approval Rate

14.50%

12.41%

12.77%
62 63

 Number of Beneficiaries2

Black Lung Claims, by Class of Beneficiary

FY 1996—FY 20051

Table B3

1996

32,452

43,155

1,393

77,000

26,845

1,558

520

28,923

105,923

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

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 Black Lung Benefits Program Obligations

FY 1996—FY 2005

($ thousands)

Table B4

1996

$992,128

499,622

404,623

95,000

47,314

445,192

373,500

$5,111,557

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

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 65

 Benefit Rates by Type of Beneficiary

Monthly Part C Black Lung Benefit Rates

1973—2005

Table B5

Claimant

$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

Claimant and

1 Dependent

$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

Claimant and

2 Dependents

$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

Claimant and 3 or

More Dependents

$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

Period

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

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 2005

($ thousands)

Table B6

Month

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

Totals

$8,949

50,832

50,735

47,002

46,155

47,705

50,562

52,674

53,640

51,171

51,402

99,059

$609,886

$0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

446,000

$446,000

$236

354

199

357

107

345

187

430

214

230

289

393

$3,340

$9,185

51,186

50,934

47,359

46,262

48,050

50,749

53,104

53,854

51,401

51,691

545,452

$1,059,226

$23,725

23,584

23,606

23,382

23,688

23,709

23,531

23,271

23,065

22,867

22,864

22,673

$279,965

$290

240

335

327

262

475

275

326

462

289

295

270

$3,843

$2,904

2,978

4,079

4,296

3,132

6,495

3,684

4,684

4,111

3,360

4,098

2,306

$46,125

$26,919

26,802

28,020

28,005

27,081

30,678

27,490

28,281

27,638

26,516

27,256

25,249

$329,933

$3,140

3,212

4,688

5,152

5,073

5,073

5,070

5,070

5,951

4,606

4,772

5,066

$56,872

$0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

674,894

$674,894

$30,058

30,014

32,708

33,157

32,154

35,751

32,560

33,351

33,589

31,122

32,028

705,208

$1,061,698

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

1/1/05-12/31/05 562.80 844.10 984.80 1,125.50
417.87 835.74 208.94 4.33

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

435.88 871.76 217.94 4.31

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

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

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

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

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

391.22 782.44 195.61 2.83

400.53 801.06 200.27 2.38

LHWCA Tables C1 — C2

450.64 901.28 225.32 3.39

466.91 933.82 233.46 3.61

483.04 966.08 241.52 3.45

498.27 996.54 249.14 3.15

515.39 1,030.78 257.70 3.44

10/01/04-9/30/05 523.58 1,047.16 261.79 1.59

 Calendar Year

Total Industry Compensation

and Benefit Payments Under LHWCA1

CY 1995—CY 20042

($ thousands)

Table C1

$257,895

238,474

$496,369

$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

Payments By:

 Self-Insured

 Employers

 Insurance Carriers

Total Payments

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

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.
$113,000 $344,103 CY 1995 $11,300 $6,754 CY 1995

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 1996—CY 2005

($ 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

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

employers and insurance carriers based on the Special Fund assessment

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

3

 Annual industry assessments pryor 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 1996—FY 2005

($ 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 2005. 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

1996 $118,260 $106,536 $2,627 $4,110 $4,987 5,126 $11,868 $10,266 $819 $0 $783 659

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
 Fiscal Year

Summary of Case Processing Activities Under LHWCA1

FY 1996—FY 2005

Table C5

6,207

4,1412

4,107

8,248

3,339

4,909

1,6613

481

2,142

1,7213

3994

7,759

4,909

3,5205

8,429

3,557

4,872

399

457

856

539

3486

6,974

3,8497

3,579

7,428

3,566

3,8628

348

419

767

464

3189

9,006

3,862

3,462

7,324

3,656

3,668

318

421

739

438

32610

8,675

3,668

3,566

7,234

3,672

3,562

326

423

749

467

29510

6,489

3,562

3,500

7,062

3,674

3,388

295

317

612

384

24810

7,391

3,388

3,276

6,664

3,529

2,98011

248

260

508

319

20810

5,495

2,980

3,036

6,016

3,499

2,517

208

332

540

282

26710

6,051

2,517

2,926

5,443

3,088

2,355

267

297

564

355

22210

6,375

2,355

2,763

5,118

2,800

2,318

222

288

510

304

21110

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

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

1 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

 The difference between the carryover in FY1996 and pending inventory at

the end of FY1995 is due to data adjustments made by the OALJ.

3 3,250 total appeals were carried over, but figures were adjusted by BRB to

take into account 1,636 separate appeals that were consolidated and disposed

of by 5 decisions.

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

reinstated appeals.

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

being held in abeyance.

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

reinstated appeals.

7 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.

8 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.

9

 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.

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

11 Includes dispositions of Boone 33(g) cases.

70

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 2005

1

Table D1 Part B

Case Status/Claims Activity

Total Received-Program Inception Through 9/30/2005

 Final Decisions Completed by

 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

1

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

September 30, 2005.

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

49,452

33,420

12,020

21,400

2,120

294

1,826

10,617

3,295

Claim3

69,237

42,857

17,324

25,533

2,996

454

2,542

15,829

7,555

Final Adjudication Branch (FAB)4

LHWCA Table C5
72

Processing Activity During FY 2005

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 2005

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2005

 Final Approved

 Final Denied

Modification Orders in FY 2005

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2005

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Approve

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Deny

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2005

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2005

1

 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2005 only, therefore the number of

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

2005. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims received prior to FY 2005).

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 2005.

Case2

6,998

8,1384

2,762

5,376

208

9,100

3,117

5,983

3,073

see claim statistics

Claim3

9,972

11,709

4,319

7,390

253

13,668

4,923

8,745

see case statistics

3,913

 Final Decisions Completed by

 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

1

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

September 30, 2005.

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.

2,064

2,027

37

239

168

71

125

32,471

2,105

2,042

63

309

180

129

165

37,251

Final Adjudication Branch (FAB)4

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 20051

Table D1 Part E

Case Status/Claims Activity

Total Received-Program Inception Through 9/30/2005

 Backlog

 New

Case2

34,899

25,530

9,369

Claim3

39,830
74

Processing Activity During FY 2005

on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims

Table D2 Part E

75

EEOICPA Tables D2 Part E — D3 Part B

Processing Activity

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2005

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2005

 Final Approved

 Final Denied

Modification Orders in FY 2005

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2005

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Approve

 Recommended Decisions Only, to Deny

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2005

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2005

1

 “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).

2

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

and all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

3

 Total includes cases with recommended decisions in FY 2005.

Case2

34,899

2,0643

2,027

37

120

2,633

2,469

164

125

see claim statistics

Claim3

39,830

2,105

2,042

63

130

2,792

2,523

269

see case statistics

1,535

EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Payments

by Category, Program Inception Through September 30, 2005

Table D3 Part B

Category

Radiation Exposure Comp. Act (RECA)3

Special Exposure Cohort Cancer (CN)

Dose Reconstructed Cancer (CN)

Beryllium Disease (CBD)4

Beryllium Sensitivity-Only (BS)

Silicosis (CS)

Multiple Conditions5

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 9/30/2005, but payments were not issued.

2

 Represents total lump sum compensation payments from EEOIC program

inception to September 30, 2005.

Approved Cases1

3,755

3,471

1,739

1,815

1,035

59

66

Final Approvals

31.4%

29.1%

14.6%

15.2%

8.7%

0.5%

0.6%

Paid Claimants

1

6,106

4,971

2,376

1,786

N/A

65

64

($ thousands)

$187,173

507,182

257,450

202,845

N/A

8,850

8,700

Compensation Paid

16.0%

43.3%

22.0%

17.3%

N/A

0.8%

0.7%

Number of Percentage of Total Number of Compensation Paid

2 Percentage of Total

Total

3

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

4

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

5

 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.

11,940 100.0% 15,368 $1,172,200 100.0%
76 77

EEOICPA Cases With Final Decision To Deny,

Program Inception Through September 30, 2005

Table D4 Part B

EEOICPA Tables D3 Part E — D4 Part B

EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Payments

by Category, Program Inception Through September 30, 2005

Table D3 Part E

Category

Radiation Exposure Comp. Act (RECA)3

Special Exposure Cohort Cancer (CN)

Dose Reconstructed Cancer (CN)

Beryllium Disease (CBD)4

Beryllium Sensitivity-Only (BS)

Silicosis (CS)

Multiple Conditions5

Other

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 9/30/2005, but payments were not issued.

2

 Represents total lump sum compensation payments from EEOIC program

inception to September 30, 2005.

Approved Cases1

225

1,417

4

79

18

4

9

271

Final Approvals

11.1%

69.9%

0.2%

3.9%

0.9%

0.2%

0.4%

13.4%

Paid Claimants1

167

1,208

4

61

N/A

1

3

91

($ thousands)

$20,942

153,318

500

7,425

N/A

125

375

11,638

Compensation Paid

10.8%

78.9%

0.3%

3.8%

N/A

0.1%

0.2%

6.0%

Number of Percentage of Total Number of Compensation Paid2 Percentage of Total

Total

3

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

4

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

5

 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.

Reason for Denial

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

During a Covered Time Period

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part B of EEOICPA

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

Than 50 Percent

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement

Other1

Total

Number of Cases

2,747

406

9,552

5,509

3,179

7

21,400

2

1

 Cases denied for other reasons.

2

 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.

2,027 100.0% 1,535 $194,322 100.0%
Most Prevalent Non-Covered Medical Conditions,

EEOIC Program Inception Through September 30, 2005

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%)

No Condition Reported on Claim Form

For This Condition

1

21%

9

7

5

5

3

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

23

9

Percentage of All Denials

1

 Based on 9,750 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 Cases With Final Decision To Deny,

Program Inception Through September 30, 2005

Table D4 Part E

EEOICPA Tables D4 Part E — D5 Part B

Reason for Denial

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

During a Covered Time Period

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary

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

11

21

0

5

371

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.
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

319 Washington Street

Johnstown, PA 15901

814-533-4323, Ext 401 (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/regs/compliance/owcp/fecacont.htm)

Douglas C. Fitzgerald, Director

Edward Duncan, Debuty Director

Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation

(www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/owcp/bltable.htm)

James L. DeMarce, Director

Steven D. Breeskin, Deputy Director

Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers'

Compensation 

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

Michael Niss, Director

Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation

(www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/owcp/eeoicp/main.htm)

Rachel P. Leiton, Director

Roberta Mosier, Debuty 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)

R. David Lotz, Acting 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

EEOICPA Resource Center (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)

newyork.center@rrohio.com

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

80

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 300 A

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702

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

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

Wellington Square, Suite 405

1225 South Main Street

Greensburg, PA 15601

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

Federal Building, Suite 3116

425 Juliana Street

Parkersburg, WV 26101

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

Airport Road

Beckley, WV 25802

304-255-6195

U.S. Department of Labor

ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

601 Federal Street

Bluefield, WV 24701

304-325-2164

U.S. Department of Labor

ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

Randolph Co. Senior Citizens' Center

Fifth and Railroad Avenue

Elkins, WV 26241

304-636-4747

U.S. Department of Labor

ESA/OWCP/DCMWC

513 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

Coal Mine Safety & Health District 3

5012 Mountaineer Mall

Morgantown, WV 26505

304-291-4277

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

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)

EEOICPA Resource Center (Paducah Site)

Jim Monahan, Office Manager

Barkely Center, Unit 125

125 Memorial Drive

Paducah, KY 42001

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

paducah.center@rrohio.com

EEOICPA Resource Center (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

EEOICPA Resource Center (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

Pikeville Black Lung District Office

Harry Skidmore, District Director

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

164 Main Street, Suite 508

Pikeville, KY 41501

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

859-498-9700 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4628)

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

Robert M. Sullivan, 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)

EEOICPA Resource Center (Portsmouth Site)

Pam Mallory, Office Manager

1200 Gay Street

Portsmouth, OH 45662

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

portsmouth.center@rrohio.com

Columbus Black Lung District Office

Don Dopps, District Director

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

1160 Dublin Road, Suite 300

Columbus, OH 43215

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

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

8866 Gulf Freeway, Suite 140

Houston, TX 77017

713-943-1605

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

Debra Thurston, District Director

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

1999 Broadway, Suite 690

P.O. Box 46550

Denver, CO 80202-6550

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

Denver Energy District Office

Ron Sanchez, Acting District Director

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

1999 Broadway, Suite 1120

P.O. Box 46550

Denver, CO 80201-6550

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

EEOICPA Resource Center (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

EEOICPA Resource Center (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

Christy Long, 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 (Idaho Falls Site)

Steve Beehler, Office Manager

1820 East 17th Street, Suite 375

Exchange Plaza

Idaho Falls, ID 83404

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

idaho.center@rrohio.com

EEOICPA Resource Center (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

EEOICPA Resource Center (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

EEOICPA Resource Center (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