United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

T.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, TANK 

AUTOMOTIVE & ARMAMENTS COMMAND, 

Anniston, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-0170 

Issued: January 27, 2016 

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 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 6, 2015 appellant timely appealed the September 25, 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 the claim. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant sustained an injury in the performance of duty on or about 

June 11, 2015. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 23, 2015 appellant, a 41-year-old heavy mobile equipment repairer, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) for bilateral hearing loss. He indicated that he worked 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

around loud vehicles, and also used loud tools on a daily basis. Appellant identified June 11, 

2015 as the date he first became aware of his hearing loss. It was also the date he first realized 

his condition was caused or aggravated by his employment. The July 23, 2015 claim form did 

not indicate a work stoppage. There was no additional factual or medical information submitted 

with appellant’s Form CA-2. 

On July 24, 2015 OWCP acknowledged receipt of appellant’s hearing loss claim and 

advised him of the five basic elements for acceptance of a claim under FECA. Additionally, it 

informed him that the current record did not support that he actually experienced the 

employment factor(s) alleged to have caused his injury or that he was injured in the performance 

of duty. OWCP requested specific information regarding appellant’s employment history and 

military service, with corresponding noise exposure, including the type(s) and duration of such 

exposure. It also inquired whether he utilized any safety devices to protect against noise 

exposure. Additionally, OWCP asked if appellant was still exposed to hazardous noise at work, 

and if not, when was his last exposure. It also instructed him to describe any hobbies that 

involved exposure to loud noise. 

The record included an OWCP-generated list of three prior traumatic injury claims 

appellant filed, two of which involved lumbar and thoracic sprains. The July 24, 2015 

development letter inquired whether appellant previously filed any kind of workers’ 

compensation claim for a hearing or ear condition, and what, if any, benefits he received. Lastly, 

OWCP asked appellant to describe all previous ear or hearing problems, and to provide any 

related medical evidence. Appellant initially was afforded 30 days to submit the requested 

information. OWCP requested similar factual information, as well as employee medical records 

and audiograms from appellant’s employing establishment. 

On August 5, 2015 OWCP received copies of employer-administered audiograms 

covering the period June 2003 through June 2015. On March 30 and June 10, 2015 the 

employing establishment advised appellant of a significant hearing threshold shift exhibited on 

his recent audiograms. OWCP also received a June 15, 2015 hearing loss questionnaire signed 

by appellant, and another form entitled Evidence Required in Support of a Claim for WorkRelated Hearing Loss.

2

 This latter form was signed by both appellant and his supervisor. It 

included much of the same information OWCP requested on July 24, 2015. Additionally, 

OWCP received a copy of appellant’s position description; a job he had been performing since 

December 2003. The employing establishment provided information regarding appellant’s 

occupational noise exposure from 2003 through 2015, which he described as occurring 9 hours 

per day, 5 days a week. According to the employing establishment, appellant was exposed to 

noise from pneumatic tools, grinding, impact tools, and heavy equipment. He also provided 

information regarding his prior employment and his seven-year military service, including any 

related noise exposure. 

On August 24, 2015 OWCP sent appellant another copy of its July 24, 2015 development 

letter. The “Second Request” did not acknowledge any of the above-noted evidence received on 

August 5, 2015. 

 2

 The employing establishment provided appellant instructions and a series of worksheets to aid in the filing of his 

workers’ compensation claim. 
3

OWCP subsequently received a September 1, 2015 signed statement of certification from 

appellant attesting to the accuracy of the information submitted in response to OWCP’s July 24, 

2015 questionnaire. 

By decision dated September 25, 2015, OWCP denied appellant’s hearing loss claim 

because he had not established fact of injury. It indicated that he had not submitted the necessary 

factual information in response to its July 24 and August 24, 2015 development questionnaire. 

Consequently, OWCP found that the evidence did not support that the injury and/or event(s) 

occurred as alleged. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

A claimant seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of establishing 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.3

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

submit: (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 diagnosed condition is causally related to the 

identified employment factors.4

ANALYSIS 

OWCP denied appellant’s hearing loss claim finding that he failed to establish fact of 

injury. Appellant purportedly had not responded to OWCP’s repeated requests for information. 

OWCP’s September 25, 2015 decision listed a number of documents received, but did not 

otherwise describe the specific information included in the referenced documents. 

As the Board’s decisions are final with regard to the subject matter appealed, it is crucial 

that all relevant evidence that was properly submitted to OWCP prior to the time of issuance of 

its final decision be addressed by OWCP.5

 It is found that OWCP did not closely examine the 

content of appellant’s June 15, 2015 hearing loss questionnaire, and the similarly dated form 

entitled Evidence Required in Support of a Claim for Work-Related Hearing Loss. The two 

 3

 20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e), (f) (2014); see Jacquelyn L. Oliver, 48 ECAB 232, 235-36 (1996). Causal relationship is 

a medical question, which generally requires rationalized medical opinion evidence to resolve the issue. See 

Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between 

the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factors must be based on a complete factual and medical 

background. Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989). Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical rationale, 

explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s specific employment 

factors. Id. 

4 Victor J. Woodhams, id. 

5

 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d); see William A. Couch, 41 ECAB 548, 553 (1990). 
4

forms, signed by appellant, included much of the same information requested by OWCP on 

July 24, 2015. Appellant had already provided the information sought by OWCP.6 The abovenoted documents included specific information about appellant’s employment exposure, hobbies, 

prior hearing problems and/or treatment, use of protective equipment, and the existence of any 

prior hearing-related claims. In determining whether a claimant has discharged his or her burden 

of proof and is entitled to compensation benefits, OWCP is required by statute and regulations to 

make findings of fact.7 

OWCP’s procedures further specify that a final decision of OWCP must include findings 

of fact and provide clear reasoning which allows the claimant to understand the precise defect of 

the claim and the kind of evidence which would tend to overcome it.8

 Accordingly, the Board 

finds that OWCP failed to consider and make findings regarding relevant evidence it received 

prior to the issuance of the September 25, 2015 decision. Whether OWCP receives relevant 

evidence on the date of the decision or several days prior, such evidence must be considered.9 

As it failed to address all relevant evidence before it at the time, the case is remanded for a 

proper review of the evidence and issuance of an appropriate final decision. 

CONCLUSION 

The case is not in posture for decision. 

 6

 Moreover, some of the requested information was already provided on Form CA-2. 

7

 5 U.S.C. § 8124(a) provides that OWCP shall determine and make a finding of facts and make an award for or 

against payment of compensation. 20 C.F.R. § 10.126 provides in pertinent part that the final decision of OWCP 

shall contain findings of fact and a statement of reasons. 

8 See K.Y., Docket No. 15-1377 (issued October 15, 2015); see also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- 

Claims, Disallowances, Chapter 2.1400.5 (February 2013). 

9 Willard McKennon, 51 ECAB 145 (1999). 
5

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 25, 2015 decision of the Office of 

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

consistent with this decision. 

Issued: January 27, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board