United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

D.J., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ROBINS 

AIR FORCE BASE, Warner Robins, GA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1327 

Issued: September 1, 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 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On May 27, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 10, 2015 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 sustained a ratable hearing loss warranting a schedule 

award. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On December 8, 2014 appellant, then a 62-year-old machinist, filed an occupational 

disease claim alleging that he sustained bilateral sensorineural hearing loss due to noise exposure 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

in the course of his federal employment. He was last exposed to the factors alleged to have 

caused his condition on December 2, 2014. 

The employing establishment submitted audiograms obtained as part of a hearing 

conservation program beginning in 1982. It further submitted noise exposure data. 

On December 3, 2014 appellant described his exposure to noise levels in excess of 86 

decibels at work and advised that the employing establishment required him to wear hearing 

protection beginning in 1984. He related that he had a 32-year history of noise exposure. 

On February 10, 2015 OWCP prepared a statement of accepted facts describing 

appellant’s exposure to noise at work from 1982 through December 2014. It referred him to 

Dr. Kenneth Walker, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, for a second opinion examination. 

In a report dated March 31, 2015, Dr. Walker discussed appellant’s extensive history of 

exposure to noise at work and noted that he wore hearing protection. He diagnosed bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss due in whole or in part to exposure to noise in the course of 

appellant’s federal employment. Dr. Walker recommended that appellant be evaluated for 

hearing aids. Audiometric testing performed on March 31, 2015 at the frequency levels of 500, 

1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hertz (Hz) revealed the decibel losses in the right ear of 10, 10, 20, and 

45 decibels, respectively; and decibel losses in the left ear of 15, 15, 20, and 35 decibels.2

On April 8, 2015 OWCP advised appellant that it had accepted his claim for bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss. It further provided him instructions for obtaining authorization for 

hearing aids. 

On April 9, 2015 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed the medical evidence and 

audiometric testing to determine if appellant’s binaural sensorineural hearing loss was ratable for 

schedule award purposes. Using Dr. Walker’s audiogram results, he calculated that, under the 

sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (A.M.A., Guides), appellant had a zero percent binaural hearing loss and a zero 

percent loss in both the left and right ears. The medical adviser found that appellant’s total 

decibel loss in the right ear at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 was 85 decibels and the average loss 

was 21 decibels. After he subtracted the fence of 25, appellant had a zero percent monaural loss 

of hearing on the right. In the left ear, the decibel losses totaled 85 decibels and averaged 21 

decibels. After subtraction of the fence of 25, appellant had a zero percent monaural loss of 

hearing on the left. The medical adviser identified the date of maximum medical improvement 

as March 31, 2015. 

By decision dated April 10, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim as his 

hearing loss was not sufficiently severe to be ratable. 

 2

 The audiologist noted that appellant was last exposed to loud noise at least 16 hours before testing and that the 

audiological equipment was last calibrated on November 5, 2014. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA3 and its implementing federal regulations4 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. However, 

FECA does not specify the manner in which the percentage of loss shall be determined. For 

consistent results and to ensure equal justice under the law for all claimants, OWCP has adopted 

the A.M.A., Guides as the uniform standard applicable to all claimants.5 As of May 1, 2009, the 

sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides is used to calculate schedule awards.6

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

A.M.A., Guides.

7

 Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, 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 point out, losses below 25 decibels result in no impairment in the ability to hear 

everyday speech under everyday conditions. 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 

binaural hearing loss. The Board has concurred in OWCP’s adoption of this standard for 

evaluating hearing loss.8

 

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not established that he has a ratable hearing loss due to 

his accepted binaural sensorineural hearing loss. OWCP accepted that he had bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss based on the report of Dr. Walker. As part of his March 31, 2015 

otologic evaluation, Dr. Walker had audiometric testing performed. 

The medical adviser applied OWCP’s standardized procedures to Dr. Walker’s March 31, 

2015 audiogram. Test results for the frequency levels recorded at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 

Hz on the right revealed decibel losses of 10, 10, 20, and 45 decibels respectively, for a total of 

85 decibels. This figure, when divided by 4, resulted in an average hearing loss of 21 decibels. 

The average of 21 decibels, when reduced by the 25-decibel fence and multiplied by 1.5, yielded 

a zero percent monaural hearing loss of the right ear. Testing for the left ear at the frequency 

levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz revealed decibel losses of 15, 15, 20, and 35 decibels 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

5 Id. at § 10.404(a). 

6

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, 

Chapter 2.808.5(a) (February 2013); see also Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and Exhibit 1 

(January 2010). 

7

 A.M.A., Guides 250. 

8 See J.H., Docket No. 08-2432 (issued June 15, 2009); J.B., Docket No. 08-1735 (issued January 27, 2009). 
4

respectively, for a total loss of 85 decibels. The medical adviser divided 85 decibels by 4 to find 

an average of 21 decibels, which, when reduced by the 25-decibel fence and multiplied by 1.5, 

yielded a zero percent monaural hearing loss of the left ear. As appellant had a monaural hearing 

loss of zero percent for the left and right ears, the binaural hearing loss was also zero percent.9

 

Thus, although he has an employment-related binaural hearing loss, it is not sufficient to show 

impairment of hearing according to the A.M.A., Guides.

10

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 that he sustained a ratable hearing loss 

warranting a schedule award. 

ORDER 

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

Compensation Programs dated April 10, 2015 is affirmed. 

Issued: September 1, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 9 See W.W., Docket No. 14-643 (issued July 11, 2014). 

10 See M.R., Docket No. 15-0529 (issued July 2, 2015); P.V., Docket No. 13-1870 (issued January 7, 2014).