United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL 

FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, 

Pearl Harbor, HI, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-283 

Issued: April 23, 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 November 19, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 10, 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 has established a hearing loss in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 26, 2014 appellant, then a 61-year-old powered support systems mechanic, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained a “permanent 

 

 1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

threshold shift in hearing” on or before May 20, 2009. The employing establishment noted that 

appellant first reported the condition to his supervisor on October 6, 2009. 

In a March 3, 2014 letter, OWCP advised appellant of the additional evidence needed to 

establish his claim, including corroboration of hazardous noise exposure at work and medical 

evidence supporting that a ratable hearing loss resulted from that exposure. It afforded appellant 

30 days to submit such evidence. 

In response, appellant submitted annual employing establishment audiograms dated from 

2007 through 2013, obtained through a hearing conservation program. These reports showed a 

progressive bilateral hearing loss. The June 1, 2007 audiogram report noted that appellant “was 

told of hearing loss at time of separation from military.” An October 6, 2009 employing 

establishment report noted that audio testing conducted by the occupational health clinic found a 

“permanent threshold shift in [appellant’s] hearing.” An April 16, 2013 audiogram showed 

decibel losses at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz (Hz) in the right ear 

of 5, 25, 40, and 60, respectively. Testing at the same frequency levels for the left ear revealed 

decibel losses of 5, 20, 30, and 50, respectively. 

Appellant also provided his April 8, 2014 statement describing exposure to hazardous 

noise from gas turbines and ship engines during military service from 1972 to June 30, 1999. 

From January 2000 to March 31, 2014, appellant was exposed to noise from gas turbines and 

diesel engine generators at the employing establishment for two hours a day. He noted wearing 

earplugs or earmuffs from 1997 onward. 

By letters dated April 23, 24, and 29, 2014, OWCP advised appellant of a June 5, 2014 

appointment with Howard K. Tamashiro, an audiologist, and a June 23, 2014 second opinion 

appointment with Dr. Ronald Peroff, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, to assess the nature and 

extent of his hearing loss. Appellant did not attend either appointment. 

By decision dated July 10, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim because he failed to 

submit probative medical evidence establishing that the accepted occupational noise exposures 

caused hearing loss. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while 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.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4 

 2 Id. 

3 Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4 See Irene St. John, 50 ECAB 521 (1999); Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 
3

An occupational disease is defined as a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift.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.6 

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed that exposure to hazardous noise at work caused a “permanent 

threshold shift in hearing.” OWCP accepted that, while working as a powered systems mechanic 

at the employing establishment from January 2000 to March 2014, he was exposed to noise from 

gas turbines and diesel engine generators for two hours a day. 

OWCP’s March 3, 2014 letter advised appellant of the importance of submitting medical 

evidence from a physician, supporting that hazardous noise at the employing establishment 

caused or aggravated a medical condition. Appellant provided employing establishment 

audiograms and occupational health correspondence, but no reports signed or reviewed by a 

physician. Consequently, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Peroff, a Board-certified audiologist, 

and Mr. Tamashiro, an audiologist, to obtain a second opinion on the etiology and extent of the 

claimed hearing loss. However, appellant did not attend either appointment, nor provide medical 

evidence from a qualified physician. OWCP denied appellant’s claim by July 10, 2014 decision, 

finding that he did not establish fact of injury due to a lack of probative medical evidence. 

Appellant’s exposure to hazardous noise at work, and his participation in a hearing 

conservation program, are not in dispute. Although annual employing establishment audiograms 

show bilateral threshold shifts, there is no opinion of record from a physician diagnosing a 

hearing loss or relating any medical condition to the accepted noise exposures. As OWCP 

advised in its March 3, 2014 letter, it was appellant’s burden to provide medical evidence 

showing that the accepted work factors caused the claimed condition.7

 Appellant also failed to 

attend second opinion referrals that were scheduled to assess whether appellant had a ratable 

hearing loss and if it was related to his federal employment. The Board therefore finds that 

OWCP’s July 10, 2014 decision denying appellant’s claim is proper under the law and facts of 

this case. 

On appeal, appellant asserts that the employing establishment acknowledged that he 

sustained a “permanent threshold shift in hearing.” He notes his participation in a hearing 

 5

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

 6 Solomon Polen, 51 ECAB 341 (2000). 

 7 Id. 
4

conservation program with annual audiograms. As stated above, appellant did not submit 

probative medical evidence diagnosing a hearing loss, or cooperate with OWCP’s efforts to 

obtain such evidence from a second opinion physician. 

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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a hearing loss in the performance of 

duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated July 10, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: April 23, 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