United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.C., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DLADISTRIBUTION REGION EAST, 

Fort Belvoir, VA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1294 

Issued: August 20, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 21, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from December 23, 2014 and May 11, 

2015 merit decisions 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish that he sustained a 

ratable hearing loss entitling him to a schedule award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 27, 2014 appellant, then a 56-year-old general supply specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed hearing loss as a result of 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

employment-related noise exposure. He was employed as a general supply specialist from 

January 5, 1997 to present and was exposed to noise from golf carts, fork lifts, conveyers system, 

and tow line cart systems. Appellant’s prior federal employment stemmed back to 

September 8, 1975. 

Audiograms and hearing conservation data were submitted from January 28, 1988 

through March 13, 2014. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Carol L. St. George, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, 

for a second opinion evaluation on September 24, 2014. It prepared a statement of accepted facts 

addressing appellant’s federal work duties as a general supply specialist and the types of 

employment-related noise he was exposed to. 

An audiogram was completed on September 24, 2014 which revealed the following 

decibel (dB) losses at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz (Hz): 10, 15, 20, and 50 for the right 

ear and 10, 10, 5, and 15 for the left ear. Dr. St. George noted that the audiogram showed mildto-moderate left high frequency hearing loss of a sensorineural nature and a right mild-to-severe 

high frequency sensorineural hearing loss. She opined that appellant’s bilateral asymmetric high 

frequency hearing loss was due to his workplace noise exposure and in excess of what would be 

predicated for presbycusis. Dr. St. George stated that in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, 

calculation of monaural and binaural impairment revealed no ratable hearing loss. She further 

recommended a consultation for hearing aids. 

By decision dated November 24, 2014, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss. 

On November 30, 2014 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award. 

On October 28, 2011 an OWCP district medical adviser (DMA) reviewed 

Dr. St. George’s September 24, 2014 otologic examination and agreed that appellant had 

developed binaural work-related hearing loss. In accordance with the sixth edition of the 

American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment2

 (A.M.A., 

Guides), he applied the audiometric data to OWCP’s standard for evaluating hearing loss and 

determined that appellant had zero percent monaural hearing loss in the left ear, zero percent 

monaural hearing loss in the right ear, and zero percent binaural hearing loss.3

 The DMA 

concluded that appellant had no ratable hearing loss and the date of maximum medical 

improvement (MMI) was noted as September 24, 2014. He further stated that hearing aids 

should be authorized for the right ear due to significant hearing loss at 3,000 Hz. However, the 

DMA did not recommend hearing aids for the left ear stating that appellant had no significant 

hearing loss until 8,000 Hz and it was unlikely amplification of this frequency would provide any 

benefit in terms of improved speech discrimination. He requested the second opinion physician 

explain why she felt amplification in the left ear was necessary. 

 2

 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009). 

3 Id. at 252, Table 11-2. 
3

By decision dated December 23, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim 

finding that his hearing loss was not severe enough to be considered ratable. It further found that 

he was entitled to medical benefits for the effects of his injury, including a hearing aid for the 

right ear. 

On January 16, 2015 appellant appealed the December 23, 2014 schedule award 

determination and requested review of the written record before the Branch of Hearings and 

Review. In support of his claim, he resubmitted prior audiograms previously of record. 

By decision dated May 11, 2015, the Branch of Hearings and Review affirmed the 

December 23, 2014 schedule award decision finding that appellant’s hearing loss was not severe 

enough to be considered ratable. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA4 and its implementing regulations 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. FECA, however, does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage loss of a member shall be determined. The method 

used in making such determination is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of OWCP. For 

consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized the use of a single set of 

tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The A.M.A., Guides

(6th ed. 2009), has been adopted by OWCP for evaluating schedule losses and the Board has 

concurred in such adoption.5

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

A.M.A., Guides. 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. 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.6 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 the binaural hearing loss. The Board has concurred in OWCP’s adoption 

of this standard for evaluating hearing loss.7

 4

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

5 See R.D., 59 ECAB 127 (2007); Bernard Babcock, Jr., 52 ECAB 143 (2000). 

6 See A.M.A., Guides 250. 

7 See E.S., 59 ECAB 249 (2007); Donald Stockstad, 53 ECAB 301 (2002), petition for recon. granted (modifying 

prior decision), Docket No. 01-1570 (issued August 13, 2002). 
4

ANALYSIS 

Appellant filed a claim for bilateral hearing loss and was referred to Dr. St. George for a 

second opinion examination. After reviewing the statement of accepted facts and medical file, 

conducting a thorough physical evaluation and obtaining an audiogram on September 24, 2014, 

Dr. St. George diagnosed bilateral asymmetric high frequency sensorineural hearing loss due to 

occupational noise exposure. The DMA concurred with this finding and further concluded that 

appellant had no ratable hearing loss which would warrant a schedule award. He recommended 

hearing aids for the right ear only. OWCP accepted appellant’s occupational disease claim for 

bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. By decisions dated December 23, 2014 and May 11, 2015, 

OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim. 

The Board finds that OWCP correctly denied appellant’s schedule award claim. 

According to the audiometry obtained on September 24, 2014, appellant’s hearing thresholds 

were 10, 15, 20, and 50 on the right and 10, 10, 5, and 15 on the left. These total 95 and 40 

decibels, respectively, for averages of 23.75 and 10 decibels. Because these averages are below 

the fence of 25 decibels, appellant is deemed to have no impairment in his ability to hear every 

day sounds under everyday listening conditions.8 This does not mean that he has no hearing loss. 

It means that the extent or degree of loss is not sufficient to show a practical impairment in 

hearing according to the A.M.A., Guides. The A.M.A., Guides set a threshold for impairment 

and appellant’s occupational hearing loss did not cross that threshold. Thus, the OWCP DMA 

applied the proper standards to the September 24, 2014 audiogram. Appellant’s hearing loss was 

not ratable. For this reason, the Board finds that OWCP properly denied a schedule award for 

appellant’s nonratable hearing loss. 

Appellant may request a schedule award or increased 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. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has not established a ratable loss of hearing such that he is 

entitled to a schedule award. 

 8 See L.F., Docket No. 10-2115 (issued June 3, 2011). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the May 11, 2015 and December 23, 2014 

decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs are affirmed. 

Issued: August 20, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board