United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.H., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET 

SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, Bremerton, WA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-170 

Issued: March 18, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 3, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 6, 2014 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. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish a ratable impairment 

caused by the accepted noise-induced hearing loss that would warrant a schedule award. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 31, 2014 appellant, then a 57-year-old materials engineering technician, filed 

an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that noise exposure at work caused hearing 

loss. 

In letters dated February 12, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to 

support his claim. It asked that the employing establishment provide information regarding his 

noise exposure and hearing conservation measures. 

The employing establishment submitted hearing conservation data from January 10, 1983 

through September 13, 2013. It also submitted appellant’s employment record and a noise 

assessment worksheet. 

In a report dated January 15, 2014, Dr. Richard W. Seaman, a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist, diagnosed appellant with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and tinnitus. 

Based upon the fifth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment, (A.MA., Guides) he rated appellant’s hearing loss as zero percent on the 

left, zero percent on the right, a binaural loss of zero percent, and a tinnitus rating of zero 

percent. Dr. Seaman recommended that appellant would benefit from the use of hearing aids and 

stated that his hearing loss was probably due in significant measure to occupational noise 

damage. 

On July 14, 2014 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Gerald Randolph, a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist, to determine the nature and extent of appellant’s hearing loss and its 

relationship to his federal employment. In a report dated August 8, 2014, Dr. Jackson Holland, a 

Board-certified otolaryngologist, reviewed appellant’s noise exposure at work, the statement of 

accepted facts and the medical records.2

 He noted that appellant worked as a boiler maker, pipe 

fitter, and mechanic from 1982 until his full retirement in May 2014. On examination, 

appellant’s ears appeared normal. Dr. Holland submitted a calibration certification and the 

results of audiometric testing performed by a certified audiologist. The audiogram performed on 

August 4, 2014 reflected testing at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles 

per second (cps) and revealed the following: right ear 10, 15, 25, and 40 decibels (dBs); left ear 

5, 15, 25, and 35 dBs, respectively. Dr. Holland noted that appellant had a binaural impairment 

rating of zero percent, but advised that tinnitus was present and recommended a tinnitus rating 

score of two percent. He checked a box indicating that appellant’s hearing loss was due to noise 

exposure encountered in his federal employment, and recommended that appellant use hearing 

aids on a trial basis. 

By decision dated August 27, 2014, OWCP accepted that appellant sustained bilateral 

hearing loss due to employment-related noise exposure and bilateral tinnitus. 

On September 30, 2014 OWCP authorized hearing aids for appellant. 

 2

 The Board notes that Dr. Holland is not the physician to whom appellant was initially referred for a second 

opinion evaluation. The case record is devoid of an explanation as to why appellant met with Dr. Holland instead of 

Dr. Randolph. 
3

In a report dated September 30, 2014, Dr. Kenneth Sawyer, an OWCP medical adviser, 

reviewed the reports of Drs. Seaman and Holland. He advised that the date of maximum medical 

improvement was August 4, 2014 and determined that appellant’s binaural hearing loss was not 

severe enough to be ratable under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

3

 Dr. Sawyer 

disagreed with Dr. Holland’s recommendation of a two percent impairment for tinnitus. He 

explained that the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides allowed an impairment rating for tinnitus 

only in the presence of hearing impairment. Dr. Sawyer recommended authorization of hearing 

aids. 

On October 3, 2014 appellant requested a schedule award. 

By decision dated October 6, 2014, OWCP found that appellant was not entitled to a 

schedule award because the extent of his hearing loss was not severe enough to be ratable. It 

noted that the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides allowed for an impairment rating for tinnitus 

only in the presence of a hearing impairment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA4

 and its implementing regulations5 set forth the 

number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent impairment from 

loss, or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. However, FECA does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. For consistent results 

and to ensure equal justice under the law to all claimants, good administrative practice 

necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to 

all claimants.6

 The A.M.A., Guides have been adopted by the implementing regulations as the 

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.7

OWCP evaluates industrial hearing loss in accordance with the standards contained in the 

A.M.A., Guides.

8

 Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cps, the losses at each 

frequency are added up and averaged. Then, the fence of 25 dBs is deducted because, as the 

A.M.A., Guides point out, losses below 25 dBs result in no impairment in the ability to hear 

everyday speech under everyday conditions. The remaining amount is multiplied by a factor of 

1.5 to arrive at the percentage of monaural hearing loss. The binaural loss is determined by 

calculating the loss in each ear using the formula for monaural loss; the lesser loss is multiplied 

by five, then added to the greater loss and the total is divided by six to arrive at the amount of 

 3

 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2008). 

4

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

6 See D.K., Docket No. 10-174 (issued July 2, 2010); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379, 385 (2006). 

7 Supra note 5; see F.D., Docket No. 09-1346 (issued July 19, 2010). 

8 See A.M.A., Guides 250 (6th ed. 2009). 
4

binaural hearing loss. The Board has concurred in OWCP’s adoption of this standard for 

evaluating hearing loss.9

Regarding tinnitus, the A.M.A., Guides provide that tinnitus is not a disease but rather a 

symptom that may be the result of disease or injury.10 The A.M.A., Guides state that, if tinnitus 

interferes with activities of daily living (ADLs), including sleep, reading (and other tasks 

requiring concentration), enjoyment of quiet recreation and emotional well-being, up to five 

percent may be added to a measurable binaural hearing impairment.11

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that the evidence of record does not establish that appellant has a ratable 

hearing loss based on his accepted bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The August 4, 2014 

audiogram results did not demonstrate ratable values, and this audiogram was the only one 

interpreted in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. Dr. Seaman’s 

January 15, 2014 report did not include the actual results from an audiogram, and his impairment 

ratings were interpreted according to the fifth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

The August 4, 2014 audiogram is the only study that complied with OWCP certification 

procedures. It demonstrated record values at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 

3,000 cps of 10, 15, 25, and 40 dBs on the right for a total of 90 dBs. This figure, when divided 

by four, results in an average hearing loss of 22.5 dBs. The average of 22.5 dBs, when reduced 

by the 25-dB fence, results in zero percent monaural hearing loss in the right ear. The frequency 

levels on the left at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cps revealed dB losses of 5, 15, 25, and 35 dBs, 

for a total of 80 dB. This figure, when divided by four, results in an average hearing loss of 20 

dB, which, when reduced by the 25-dB fence, results in zero percent monaural hearing loss of 

the left ear. The Board finds that, as the August 4, 2014 audiogram did not demonstrate that 

appellant’s hearing loss was ratable, he is not entitled to a schedule award for his accepted 

hearing loss condition. While OWCP accepted tinnitus as a condition under appellant’s claim, 

tinnitus may not be added to an impairment rating for hearing loss under the sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides unless such hearing loss is ratable.12

Appellant may request a schedule award based on evidence of a new exposure or medical 

evidence showing progression of an employment-related condition resulting in permanent 

impairment or increased impairment. 

 9 J.H., Docket No. 08-2432 (issued June 15, 2009); J.B., Docket No. 08-1735 (issued January 27, 2009). 

10 See A.M.A., Guides 249 (6th ed. 2009). 

11 Id. See also R.O., Docket No. 13-1036 (issued August 28, 2013); R.H., Docket No. 10-2139 (issued July 13, 

2011); Robert E. Cullison, 55 ECAB 570, 573 (2004). 

12 See Juan A. Trevino, 54 ECAB 358, 360 (2003).
5

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant did not establish that he is entitled to a schedule award for 

his employment-related hearing loss, as his hearing loss was not ratable. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 6, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: March 18, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board