United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.P., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET 

SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, Bremerton, WA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1192 

Issued: October 5, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 4, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from the April 16, 2015 merit decision of 

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

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

the merits of this case.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that his bilateral 

hearing loss and tinnitus is causally related to his federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 On appeal appellant provided new evidence. However, the Board has no jurisdiction to review this evidence for 

the first time on appeal.2

 Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 10.605 through 

10.607. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 5, 1994 appellant then a 44-year-old crane operator supervisor, filed an 

occupational disease claim, alleging that his hearing loss was caused by his over 20 years of 

work with the employing establishment. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Preston Rice, a Board-certified otolaryngologist. In a 

September 28, 1994 report, Dr. Rice noted that appellant had worked for the employing 

establishment since 1973, but that he only had audiograms from 1984 to 1994 for review. He 

noted that appellant related a significant change in his left ear since he began work with the 

employing establishment. Dr. Rice stated that audiograms from 1984 to 1994 did not show any 

significant change beyond what would be expected from presbycusis. He opined that there was 

nothing in appellant’s work history to explain an increase in hearing loss in only one ear. 

Dr. Rice concluded that there was no significant aggravation of appellant’s hearing loss due to 

workplace noise exposure. 

In a December 9, 1994 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that his hearing 

loss was due to a preexisting condition. 

On January 7, 2015 appellant filed a claim, alleging that his bilateral hearing loss and 

tinnitus had been caused by factors of his federal employment.3

 He opined that appellant had 

hearing loss from noise exposure as a ship’s carpenter and a crane operator. Appellant stated 

that his condition was caused or aggravated by his employment on September 1, 1997. The 

employing establishment controverted the claim and noted that he had retired on 

September 1, 1997. 

By letters dated February 3, 2015, OWCP informed appellant and the employing 

establishment of the type of evidence needed to develop his claim and requested that they submit 

such evidence within 30 days. It asked appellant to indicate why he did not file his claim earlier. 

OWCP also asked him to state whether he had previously filed a claim for hearing loss and, if so, 

to provide information about that claim. It further asked appellant to describe all previous ear or 

hearing problems. 

OWCP received personnel records from the employing establishment, including 

appellant’s employment history, position descriptions, and notices of personnel action. A 

January 7, 2015 report from an audiologist was also submitted. 

By decision dated April 16, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for hearing loss as the 

evidence was insufficient to establish that the workplace exposure occurred as described. It 

noted that the claim form indicated that appellant was not aware that he could file a claim. 

OWCP noted that appellant did not respond to its questions in its February 3, 2015 letter. It also 

noted that appellant had a previous June 5, 1994 claim for hearing loss that had been denied on 

December 9, 1994. OWCP found that appellant did not respond to any of the questions and he 

failed to identify the source of the hazardous noise exposure. It also explained that the medical 

 3

 OWCP combined the files for the 1994 claim and the 2015 claim. 
3

evidence had not established a diagnosed medical condition causally related to the work injury or 

event. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

 An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim including the fact that the individual is an “employee of the United 

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

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

that any disability and/or specific condition for which compensation is claimed are causally related 

to the employment injury.4

 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.5

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

disease claim, a claimant must submit the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or 

occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the employment 

factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which 

compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

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

ANALYSIS 

In this case, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because it determined that the workplace 

exposure had not occurred as described. By letter dated February 3, 2015, it informed him of the 

evidence needed to support his claim. OWCP also asked appellant to address whether he had 

previously filed a similar claim. Finally, it asked appellant to describe all previous ear or hearing 

problems. 

OWCP received appellant’s personnel records and a report from a January 7, 2015 

audiology examination. However, appellant did not submit a factual statement responding to the 

February 3, 2015 requests for information. He did not identify the source of his hazardous noise 

exposure. This is especially important because appellant had filed a claim for hearing loss on 

June 5, 1994. The claim was denied on December 9, 1994. Appellant did not explain whether 

he had a subsequent noise exposure, which he claimed caused his alleged hearing loss. Without 

the requested factual information, he has not provided sufficient documentation to support his 

claim. The Board finds that the evidence does not establish hearing loss. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not meet his burden of proof to establish bilateral 

hearing loss and tinnitus causally related to his federal employment. 

 4 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1145 (1989). 

5 Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345 (1989). 
4

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 16, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board