United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

L.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY & 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Norton, VA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 14-1954 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Gregory M. Stewart, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On September 9, 2014 appellant, through counsel, timely appealed the May 19, 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.2

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant is entitled to an increased schedule award for binaural 

hearing loss. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193 (2006). 

2

 Appellant’s counsel submitted a recent medical report obtained subsequent to OWCP’s May 19, 2014 decision. 

The Board is precluded from considering evidence that was not in the case record at the time OWCP rendered its 

final decision. 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c)(1) (2014). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

Appellant, a 65-year-old retired supervisory mine safety and health specialist, has an 

accepted claim for binaural hearing loss. He worked for the employing establishment from 

August 1978 until his retirement in October 2007.3 Appellant indicated that he first learned of 

his employment-related hearing loss on March 15, 2012, which OWCP accepted as the date of 

injury. 

On September 25, 2012 OWCP granted a schedule award for 14 percent binaural hearing 

loss. It based the award on the July 30, 2012 findings of Dr. Frank B. Little, Jr., a Boardcertified otolaryngologist and OWCP referral physician. The district medical adviser, 

Dr. David D. Zimmerman, reviewed Dr. Little’s findings and calculated 14 percent binaural 

hearing loss. The September 25, 2012 schedule award covered a 28-week period from July 30, 

2012 through February 10, 2013. 

On January 2, 2014 appellant filed a claim (Form CA-7) for an increased schedule award. 

By letter dated January 8, 2014, OWCP advised appellant to submit a new narrative 

medical report that included an impairment rating under the sixth edition of the American 

Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (2008). Appellant was 

afforded at least 30 days to submit the requested medical evidence; however, OWCP did not 

receive any evidence in response to its January 8, 2014 development letter. 

By decision dated February 20, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for an increased 

schedule award. It noted the record did not include any recent examination findings establishing 

additional hearing loss. 

On February 28, 2014 OWCP received a request for reconsideration from appellant. It 

also received a January 22, 2014 audiogram administered by Fredia J. Helbert, a doctor of 

audiology (Au.D.), who diagnosed moderate to severe bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. 

Ms. Helbert noted that appellant’s hearing had decreased since his April 2012 audiogram.4

 She 

noted that the configuration of this hearing loss was similar to noise-induced hearing loss. 

Ms. Helbert further noted that, according to the A.M.A., Guides, appellant had 20.6 percent 

impairment on the right side and 28.1 percent on the left.5

OWCP referred the record to Dr. Zimmerman, who noted that input solely from an 

audiologist could never be used to consider a hearing loss schedule award. In his April 29, 2014 

report, Dr. Zimmerman also questioned whether the reported increase was employment-related 

given that appellant’s occupational noise exposure ended in October 2007. He explained that 

 3

 Appellant retired effective October 3, 2007. 

4

 Appellant also submitted an April 4, 2012 audiogram and report from Ms. Helbert, which was already part of 

the record. 

5

 The January 22, 2014 audiogram noted losses at the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per 

second. The right ear losses were recorded as 15, 25, 40, and 75 decibels. The left ear losses were recorded as 20, 

25, 60, and 70 decibels. Based on the recorded measurements, appellant had 22 percent binaural hearing loss. 
3

occupational hearing loss does not seem to progress when noise exposure stops, whereas agerelated hearing loss (presbycusis) generally progresses, albeit very slowly. Therefore, even if the 

January 22, 2014 audiogram demonstrated a more severe hearing loss, the increase was not 

shown to be employment related. 

In a May 19, 2014 decision, OWCP reviewed the merits of the claim, but denied 

modification of the February 20, 2014 decision. It noted that appellant had not been exposed to 

hazardous noise levels since October 3, 2007. Additionally, OWCP found that the audiologist’s 

January 22, 2014 report by itself was insufficient to establish entitlement to a new and increased 

schedule award for binaural hearing loss. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

Section 8107 of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the 

permanent loss of use of specified members, functions and organs of the body.6

 FECA, 

however, does not specify the manner by which the percentage loss of a member, function or 

organ shall be determined. To ensure consistent results and equal justice under the law, good 

administrative practice requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The 

implementing regulations have adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate standard for 

evaluating schedule losses.7 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in 

accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2008).8

Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per second, the losses at 

each frequency are added up and averaged.9 Then, the “fence” of 25 decibels is deducted 

because, as the A.M.A., Guides points out, losses below 25 decibels result in no impairment in 

the ability to hear everyday speech under everyday conditions.10 The remaining amount is 

multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to arrive at the percentage of monaural hearing loss.11 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, and then added to the greater loss and the total is divided by six 

to arrive at the amount of the binaural hearing loss.12

 6

 For complete loss of hearing of one ear, an employee shall receive 52 weeks’ compensation. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8107(c)(13). For complete loss of hearing of both ears, an employee shall receive 200 weeks’ compensation. Id.

7

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

8 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards & Permanent Disability 

Claims, Chapter 2.808.6a (February 2013). 

9 See Section 11.2, Hearing and Tinnitus, A.M.A., Guides 248-51 (6th ed. 2008). 

10 Id. at 250. 

11 Id. at 250-51. 

12 Id. at 251. 
4

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that the recent medical evidence does not establish entitlement to an 

increased schedule award for binaural hearing loss. OWCP previously granted an award for 14 

percent binaural hearing loss based on the July 30, 2012 findings of Dr. Little, a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist and OWCP referral physician. On January 2, 2014 appellant filed a claim for 

an increased schedule award. Appellant, however, failed to submit any new medical evidence in 

support of his claim. OWCP denied the request for an increased schedule award by decision 

dated February 20, 2014. Appellant subsequently requested reconsideration and submitted a 

January 22, 2014 audiogram and report from Ms. Helbert. Based on the latest audiogram, she 

calculated 20.6 percent impairment on the right side and 28.1 percent on the left, which 

represented 22 percent binaural hearing loss. Ms. Helbert stated that the configuration of 

appellant’s hearing loss was similar to a noise-induced hearing loss. 

The Board finds that OWCP properly denied the request for an additional schedule award 

as it cannot be based entirely on an audiologist’s findings.13 An audiologist is not a physician 

under the definition in FECA.14

CONCLUSION 

Appellant has not established entitlement to an increased schedule award for binaural 

hearing loss. 

 13 See J.H., 59 ECAB 377, 380 (2008); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Requirements for 

Medical Reports, Chapter 3.600.8a (September 1995). Although Ms. Helbert is a doctor of audiology (Au.D.), she 

is not a physician. See 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(t). 

14 See id. 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 19, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 5, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia Howard Fitzgerald, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board