United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

G.O., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY & 

HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, 

Denham Springs, LA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-561 

Issued: May 8, 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 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 21, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a November 17, 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 the case. 

ISSUE 

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

hearing loss in the performance of duty. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 6, 2014 appellant, then a 65-year-old mine safety and health inspector 

(metal/nonmetal), filed an occupational disease claim alleging that his loss of hearing was a 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

result of his federal employment. He stated that he first became aware of his condition on July 7, 

2004 and that his loss of hearing occurred over time.2

OWCP received audiograms dated September 11, 1992, September 1, 1994, April 24, 

1995, October 7, 1997, June 25, 1998, August 14, 2001, August 4, 2008, July 20, 2009, July 19, 

and August 2, 2010, May 23, 2011, July 16, 2012, and July 12, 2013 along with several 

audiogram history/reports which indicated that appellant was exposed to machines and heavy 

equipment noise intermittently four, six, or eight hours per day. 

In an August 2, 2010 report, Dr. James C. Walker, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, 

noted that appellant worked as a mine inspector and presented with complaints of unspecified 

hearing loss which had been a problem for the past two years. An audiogram was administered 

and an assessment of sensorineural hearing loss was provided. 

In a February 22, 2013 audiologist review report, Sarah E. Ervin reviewed appellant’s 

audiograms from September 11, 1992 through July 16, 2012 and opined that he had bilateral low 

frequency hearing loss. In the right ear, an age-corrected standard threshold shift occurred when 

compared to the baseline. 

In a June 19, 2014 statement, the employing establishment advised that since 1992 

appellant had worked as an underground and surface mine inspector. As a mine inspector, 

appellant had been subjected to a variety of differing noise levels and sources to include mobile 

equipment, drills, channel burners, excavators, milling and rock crushing facilities, as well as a 

variety of conveyances. The employing establishment stated that mine inspection work rarely 

exposed the inspector to high noise levels for any length of time, noting that 20 percent of time 

for inspection was for travel, 20 percent was for report writing, and the remaining 60 percent was 

for time spent on a mining site. The average is no more than 6 hours per day, 5 days a week at a 

mine site. During site inspections, the inspectors are not exposed to noise levels higher than 90 

decibels for any length of time, especially if the inspector acted with prudence and wore hearing 

protection. The employing establishment noted that hearing protection was provided and 

encouraged. 

In a hearing loss checklist, appellant related his employment history. He indicated that he 

had audiograms when he first began working for the employing establishment in 1992 and his 

last audiogram was July 12, 2013. In 2004 appellant was told that there was a shift in his hearing 

and he noticed that his hearing had worsened. On July 12, 2013 he was told that he has a serious 

hearing problem and that comment was made while his supervisor (Joseph Olivier) was present. 

On July 9, 2014 OWCP informed appellant of the evidence needed to support his claim 

and requested that additional factual and medical information be provided within 30 days. It also 

requested that the employing establishment provide any treatment notes it may have for appellant 

regarding his noise exposure. 

In a July 14, 2014 statement, appellant responded to OWCP’s questionnaire. 

 2

 On July 17, 2014 OWCP accepted the conditions of derangement right lateral meniscus, left medial meniscus 

tear, and permanent aggravation of degenerative joint disease, right for appellant’s claim of January 8, 2013. 
3

OWCP prepared a statement of accepted facts and referred appellant, along with the 

medical record, to Dr. Robert G. Brousse, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, for a second 

opinion to assess if he had sustained noise-induced hearing loss caused by his exposure to 

hazardous noise during his federal employment. In an October 16, 2014 report, Dr. Brousse 

reviewed the statement of accepted facts, appellant’s medical records including all audiometric 

data, examined appellant, and conducted an audiological evaluation. He opined that appellant’s 

mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss was not due to noise exposure encountered in 

federal employment. Dr. Brousse explained that appellant had high-frequency hearing loss prior 

to his federal employment and that this hearing loss gradually worsened over 20 years. He also 

explained that the workplace exposure was not sufficient as to intensity and duration to have 

caused the hearing loss and noted that at the beginning of appellant’s exposure to noise in federal 

employment, the audiometric data showed moderate noise dip at high frequency. Dr. Brousse 

also noted that appellant has diabetes and hypertension by history. 

By decision dated November 17, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s hearing loss claim as 

the medical evidence did not support that his hearing loss was causally related to workplace 

noise exposure. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing the essential 

elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the United 

States within the meaning of FECA; that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation; that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged; and that any 

disability or specific condition for which compensation was claimed was causally related to the 

employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of every compensation claim regardless of 

whether the claim was predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

Appellant has the burden of establishing by the weight of the reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence that his hearing loss condition was causally related to noise exposure in his 

federal employment.5 Neither the condition becoming apparent during a period of employment, 

nor the belief of the employee that the hearing loss was causally related to noise exposure in 

federal employment, is sufficient to establish causal relationship.6

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;7

 (2) a 

factual statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the 

 3 Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001); Elaine Pendleton, 40 ECAB 1143, 1154 (1989). 

4 Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999). 

5 Stanley K. Takahaski, 35 ECAB 1065 (1984). 

6 See John W. Butler, 39 ECAB 852, 858 (1988). 

7 Michael R. Shaffer, 55 ECAB 386 (2004). 
4

presence or occurrence of the disease or condition;8

 and (3) medical evidence establishing 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.9

The medical evidence required to establish causal relationship generally is rationalized 

medical opinion evidence. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and 

medical background of the employee, must be one of reasonable certainty and must be supported 

by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition 

and the specific employment factors identified by the employee.10

ANALYSIS 

It is not disputed that appellant was exposed to work-related noise while employed as a 

mine safety and health inspector at the employing establishment. In its November 17, 2014 

decision, OWCP denied his occupational disease claim and found that the medical evidence did 

not establish a causal connection between his hearing loss and workplace noise exposure. 

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

opinion evaluation. In his October 16, 2014 report, Dr. Brousse found that appellant had highfrequency hearing loss prior to his federal employment. The audiometric data showed moderate 

noise dip at high frequency, and that this hearing loss gradually worsened over 20 years. 

Dr. Brousse also explained that the workplace exposure was not intense enough or long enough 

to have caused the hearing loss. He found no basis to attribute appellant’s hearing loss to his 

workplace noise exposure. 

Appellant has not submitted sufficient medical opinion evidence supporting that his 

hearing loss was caused or aggravated by his workplace noise exposure. An August 2, 2010 

audiogram conducted for Dr. Walker provided an assessment of sensorineural hearing loss. 

However, Dr. Walker did not provide an opinion on causation. It is noted that the other 

audiograms of record contained no identification or certification of the examiner. Audiologists 

are not considered physicians under FECA.11 None of the audiograms appellant submitted were 

accompanied by a physician’s report identifying the employment factors believed to have caused 

or contributed to his hearing loss. 

The Board finds that the medical evidence does not establish that appellant’s hearing loss 

was caused or aggravated by work-related noise exposure. Accordingly, the Board finds that he 

did not establish his claim. 

 8 Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003); Roger Williams, 52 ECAB 468 (2001). 

9 Beverly A. Spencer, 55 ECAB 501 (2004). 

10 I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 465 (2005). 

11 Thomas O. Bouis, 57 ECAB 602 (2006). Section 8101(2) of FECA provides that physician includes surgeons, 

podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors and osteopathic practitioners within the scope 

of their practice as defined by State law. 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2). See Joshua A. Holmes, 42 ECAB 231 (1990) (an 

audiogram prepared by an audiologist must be certified by a physician before it can be used to determine hearing 

loss). 
5

On appeal, appellant states that it is hard for him to believe his hearing loss is not work 

related because he was exposed to noise 8 to 12 hours per day, 40 hours per week. He has the 

burden of establishing by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that his hearing loss was 

causally related to noise exposure in his federal employment.12 Neither the condition becoming 

apparent during a period of employment, nor the belief of the employee, is sufficient to establish 

causal relationship.13 In this case, appellant has not submitted sufficient medical opinion 

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

exposure. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument as part of a formal 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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he 

sustained hearing loss in the performance of duty. 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the November 17, 2014 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: May 8, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 12 See supra note 5. 

13 See supra note 6.