United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.E., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMEMT OF THE ARMY, RED RIVER 

ARMY DEPOT, Texarkana, TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-333 

Issued: March 25, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

DECISION AND ORDER 

Before: 

PATRICIA HOWARD FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 26, 2014 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 24, 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 has established a hearing loss causally related to his 

federal employment. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 

2

 After the Board took jurisdiction on November 26, 2014 over the June 24, 2014 OWCP decision, appellant 

requested a hearing before an OWCP hearing representative. OWCP issued a decision dated December 17, 2014 

denying the request as untimely. The Board has jurisdiction over decisions issued within 180 days prior to the filing 

of the appeal, and therefore does not have jurisdiction on this appeal over a December 17, 2014 decision. See 20 

C.F.R. § 501.3(e); see also Jada Mason-Richardson, Docket No. 98-405 (issued August 19, 1999). 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On January 7, 2014 appellant, then a 66-year-old boiler plant operator, filed an 

occupational disease claim for compensation (Form CA-2) alleging hearing loss as a result of his 

federal employment. On the claim form, he stated that he was exposed to blower motors and 

loud noises. The date appellant became aware of the condition and its relationship to 

employment was reported as December 16, 2013. He submitted employing establishment 

audiograms from an audiologist dated December 16 and 17, 2013. 

By letter dated January 13, 2014, OWCP requested that appellant submit additional 

information. It requested that he submit his employment history, both federal and nonfederal, 

job titles, a description of noise exposure, and use of any noise-reducing devices. OWCP 

advised appellant that the claim would be held open for 30 days to provide an opportunity to 

submit the requested evidence. The record also contains a letter dated January 13, 2014 

requesting similar information from the employing establishment. No response was received. 

By decision dated February 28, 2014, OWCP denied the claim for compensation as no 

evidence had been submitted as requested. 

On March 26, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration. On that date OWCP received 

employing establishment audiograms from 1983 to 2005. 

By decision dated June 24, 2014, OWCP reviewed the case on its merits and denied 

modification. It found appellant had failed to submit factual evidence as to his specific 

employment history, sources of noise, job titles, or other relevant information. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA3 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim by the weight of the reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence, including that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged and that 

any specific condition or disability claimed is causally related to the employment injury.4

 

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty, a claimant must 

submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or 

contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; (2) medical evidence 

establishing the presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is 

claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed condition is causally related to 

the employment factors identified by the claimant.5

 

 3

 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-8193. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f) (2005); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). 

5 Ruby I. Fish, 46 ECAB 276, 279 (1994). 
3

With respect to hearing loss claims, OWCP procedures provide specific requirements for 

the audiological testing and medical examinations necessary to establish the claim.6

 The 

procedures state that once all “pertinent factual evidence” has been obtained, the medical 

evidence would be developed.7

 

ANALYSIS 

In the present case, appellant has alleged that he sustained hearing loss as a result of his 

federal employment, but a claimant must initially provide factual evidence with respect to his or 

her claim of noise exposure. The claim form briefly refers to blower motors and exposure to 

loud noises, without further explanation. Appellant did not provide his employment history, with 

dates of employment and the jobs performed. He did not clearly identify and discuss the sources 

of noise exposure, the nature and extent of the exposure, or otherwise provide a proper factual 

background for his claim for compensation. A claimant must provide an adequate description of 

the alleged noise exposure.8

 If a claimant does not submit an adequate factual statement with 

respect to a hearing loss claim, OWCP may properly deny the claim.9

The Board accordingly finds that OWCP properly denied the claim for compensation in 

this case. Appellant was advised of the need to submit a proper description of his employment 

history and noise exposure in the January 13, 2014 letter. In the absence of an appropriate 

response, OWCP properly denied the claim. 

On appeal, appellant submitted additional medical evidence. The Board notes that it may 

review only evidence that was before OWCP at the time of the final decision on appeal.10 

Moreover, the denial of the claim in this case was based on the lack of a proper factual 

background. 

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 causally related to his 

federal employment. 

 6

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Requirements for Medical Reports, Chapter 3.600.8(a) 

(September 1996). The medical examination, for example, should be performed by a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist. 

7 Id. 

8 D.B., Docket No. 06-2177 (issued March 28, 2007).

9 Id. 

10 20 C.F.R. § 501.2(c). 
4

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated June 24, 2014 is affirmed. 

Issued: March 25, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia Howard 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