United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.G., Appellant 

and 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 

PARADISE FOSSIL PLANT, Chattanooga, TN, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0443 

Issued: September 11, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Ronald K. Bruce, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

On December 17, 2014 appellant, through his attorney, filed a timely appeal of a 

November 4, 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 to consider the merits of this case. 

Appellant, then a 58-year-old heavy equipment operator, filed an occupational disease 

claim on April 13, 2013 alleging an employment-related loss of hearing. In support of his claim, 

he submitted a May 3, 2011 report from Dr. Linda Mumford, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, 

who had been designated as a second opinion physician in a separate hearing loss claim, assigned 

OWCP File No. xxxxxx612, in which OWCP had granted him a schedule award on June 7, 2011 

for a 17 percent binaural sensorineural hearing loss.2 Appellant contended that he had developed 

an additional hearing loss due to his employment duties after the issuance of his 2011 schedule 

award. In a letter dated June 18, 2013, OWCP noted that appellant was claiming an additional 

loss of hearing due to his work exposure and began further developing the claim.

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

2

 The Board is unable to access claim number xxxxxx612. 
2

On September 23, 2013 OWCP referred appellant and a statement of accepted facts for a 

second opinion examination with Dr. Andrew S. Mickler, a Board-certified otolaryngologist. In 

a supplemental report dated January 14, 2014, Dr. Mickler stated that appellant’s current 

audiogram showed a bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. He added that the hearing loss did not 

appear to be employment related because there was no noise notch in either ear, which would be 

indicative of a noise-induced hearing loss. Dr. Mickler stated, “As far as the etiology of 

[appellant’s] hearing loss, it is impossible to determine the exact cause as he would work for the 

[F]ederal [G]overnment for a few months and then he would work in the private sector for a few 

months.” 

By decision dated January 22, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for hearing loss 

finding that the weight of the medical evidence established that appellant’s loss of hearing was 

not causally related to his exposures during his federal employment. Counsel requested an oral 

hearing and, by decision dated November 4, 2014, an OWCP hearing representative affirmed the 

denial of appellant’s claim, finding that there was no rationalized medical opinion evidence 

supporting a causal relationship between appellant’s diagnosed hearing loss, and his 

employment-related noise exposures. 

The Board, having duly considered the matter, finds that this case is not in posture for a 

decision. The Board concludes that to properly consider appellant’s current claim for 

employment-related loss of hearing, appellant’s hearing loss claims should be doubled. OWCP’s 

procedures provide that cases should be doubled when correct adjudication of the issues depends 

on frequent cross-reference between files including a new injury claim for a similar condition or 

the same part of the body.3

 As OWCP has accepted binaural hearing loss under OWCP File No. 

xxxxxx612 but has denied hearing loss in the instant case, for a full and fair adjudication of 

appellant’s claims the files should be doubled.4 The Board will remand the case to OWCP for 

doubling of OWCP File No. xxxxxx612 with the current file. Following any further 

development of the medical evidence, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision as to whether 

appellant sustained additional employment-related hearing impairment entitling him to a greater 

schedule award. 

 

 3

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, File Maintenance and Management, Chapter 2.400.8(c) 

(February 2000). 

4 R.A., Docket No. 14-1828 (issued February 25, 2015) (finding that OWCP should combine hearing loss claims 

when appellant previously received a schedule award and the current second opinion physician found his hearing 

loss was not employment related). 
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 4, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: September 11, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board