United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.C., Appellant 

and 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 

GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT, Gallatin, TN, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-668 

Issued: June 1, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On February 9, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal of a December 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 to consider the merits of the case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish hearing loss due to 

noise exposure during his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On August 7, 2014 appellant, then a 59-year-old electrician, filed an occupational disease 

claim alleging that he developed hearing loss in both ears due to loud noise at the employing 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

establishment. He stated that he first became aware of his condition on June 23, 1997 and first 

related this condition to his employment on that date. Appellant did not stop work. 

OWCP requested additional factual and medical evidence in support of appellant’s claim, 

by letter dated August 28, 2014. Appellant provided his employment history on 

September 12, 2014. He indicated that he began work at the employing establishment on 

August 26, 1981 as a maintenance electrician and was exposed to noise from turbine generators, 

motors, conveyor belts, power tools, hammer drills, steam blowers, and air compressors. 

Appellant stated that earplugs were made available from 1981 to 1992, that in 1992 earplugs 

were mandatory and in 2010 double ear protection was required in certain areas. He submitted 

audiograms from the employing establishment hearing conservation program. 

The employing establishment stated that appellant was exposed to large motors, air 

compressors, and other equipment from four to seven hours a day, five days a week. 

OWCP referred appellant for a second opinion evaluation on October 30, 2014 with 

Dr. Jeffrey Paffrath, a Board-certified otolaryngologist. In his report dated November 18, 2014, 

Dr. Paffrath evaluated appellant and found that he did not have any sensorineural hearing loss in 

excess of what would be normally predicted on the basis of presbycusis. He noted that 

appellant’s employment-related noise exposure had the potential to cause hearing loss. 

Dr. Paffrath diagnosed slight-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss and indicated that in his 

opinion this hearing loss was not due to appellant’s federal employment. He opined that 

appellant’s hearing loss was not beyond presbycusis. On the accompanying audiogram, 

appellant demonstrated in the right ear at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz (Hz) decibel losses 

of 0, 10, 10, and 15 respectively. In the left ear appellant’s losses were 5, 5, 5, and 15 decibels. 

By decision dated December 19, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s claim finding that he 

failed to establish that his hearing loss was causally related to his federal employment. It stated 

that Dr. Paffrath did not support that appellant’s hearing loss was due to job-related noise 

exposure. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

OWCP’s regulations define an occupational disease as “a condition produced by the work 

environment over a period longer than a single workday or shift.”2

 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. The evidence required to establish causal 

 2

 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 
3

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence, based upon a complete factual and medical 

background, showing a causal relationship between the claimed condition and identified factors. 

The belief of a claimant that a condition was caused or aggravated by the employment is not 

sufficient to establish causal relation.3

A medical report is of limited probative value on a given medical question if it is 

unsupported by medical rationale.4

 Medical rationale includes a physician’s detailed opinion on 

the issue of whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition 

and the implicated employment activity. The opinion of the physician must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background of the claim, must be one of reasonable medical 

certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and specific employment activity or factors identified by the 

claimant.5

ANALYSIS 

Appellant alleged that he developed hearing loss due to noise exposures in his federal 

employment. It is not disputed that he was exposed to work-related noise at the employing 

establishment. OWCP denied appellant’s occupational disease claim because the medical 

evidence was insufficient to establish that his hearing loss was causally related to workplace 

noise exposure. The Board finds that he has not established hearing loss causally related to his 

federal employment. 

To further develop the claim, OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Paffrath for a second 

opinion evaluation. In his November 18, 2014 report, Dr. Paffrath opined that appellant’s 

hearing loss was not due to noise exposure from his federal employment. He explained that 

appellant’s loss of hearing was no greater than that which would have been expected to result 

from age-related presbycusis. 

Although appellant submitted copies of his audiograms from the employing 

establishment hearing conservation program, he has not submitted sufficient medical opinion 

evidence to establish that his hearing loss was caused or aggravated by workplace noise 

exposure. The only medical evidence addressing the cause of appellant’s hearing loss is 

Dr. Paffrath’s November 18, 2014 report, which attributed his hearing loss to his age and not his 

employment. 

The Board finds that the medical evidence of record does not establish that appellant’s 

hearing loss was caused or aggravated by work-related noise exposure. Accordingly, the Board 

finds that he has not established his claim.6

 3 Lourdes Harris, 45 ECAB 545, 547 (1994). 

4 T.F., 58 ECAB 128 (2006). 

5 A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006). 

6 R.S., Docket No. 14-1995 (issued February 25, 2015). 
4

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 the weight of the medical evidence does not establish that 

appellant’s hearing loss was causally related to factors of his employment. 

ORDER 

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

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 1, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board