United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

___________________________________________

R.M., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

COMMANDER U.S. PACIFIC FLEET 

SHIPYARDS, Bremerton, WA, Employer 

___________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1747 

Issued: January 19, 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 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On August 18, 2015 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 9, 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 case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a schedule award 

for his hearing loss. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On July 28, 2014 appellant, then a 65-year-old ship building specialist, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained bilateral hearing loss due to 

exposure to loud noise in the performance of duty. He indicated that he realized the disease or 

illness was caused or aggravated by his employment on September 9, 2008. Appellant did not 

stop work. 

In a separate statement and employment history, appellant noted that he was exposed to 

loud noise as a ship fitter with the employing establishment from 1987 to 2009 and as a ship 

building specialist since 2009. He pointed out that he wore safety devices and protection against 

noise exposure. 

OWCP received copies of personnel actions, work records, a position description, and 

copies of employing establishment audiograms for the periods March 24, 1987 to June 14, 2010, 

and a July 18, 2014 audiogram performed by an audiologist at a private clinic.2

By letter dated August 7, 2014, OWCP informed appellant of the type of evidence needed 

to support his claim and requested that he submit such evidence within 30 days. 

In response, appellant submitted a copy of a 2010 assessment regarding safety and health 

at the employing establishment. He emphasized in his submission that, over the course of 22 

years, he had worked on back to back projects where exposure to grinding noises was at a 

minimum of four hours per day. Appellant indicated that his testing revealed hearing loss of 60 

percent in some areas. 

In an October 24, 2014 memorandum, Allen Howard, a commanding officer, noted that 

since the 1960’s the degree and frequency to exposure and noise at the employing establishment 

included using hearing protections for exposure to noise above 84 decibels. A noise assessment 

exposure worksheet was included for appellant and revealed continuous exposure to noise in the 

79 to 89 decibel range and intermittent exposure to noise in the 100 to 110 decibel range over the 

course of his employment from June 1, 1987 to the present. 

On December 8, 2014 OWCP referred appellant, together with a statement of accepted 

facts, to Dr. Jackson Holland, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, for a second opinion evaluation 

regarding the nature, extent, and relationship of appellant’s hearing loss to his federal 

employment. 

In a December 29, 2014 report, Dr. Holland noted appellant’s history of noise exposure 

during his federal employment. He reviewed available medical records and examined appellant. 

Dr. Holland advised that the ear canals were patent, the tympanic membranes were within 

normal limits, bilaterally, and drum motility was normal. There was no evidence of acoustic 

 2

 The July 18, 2014 audiogram showed that testing for the right ear, at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, 

and 3,000 cycles per second (cps), revealed decibel losses of 20, 25, 10, and 45. Testing for the left ear at the same 

frequency levels revealed decibel losses of 25, 25, 30, and 45. 
3

neuroma or Meniere’s disease affecting the claimant’s hearing. Dr. Holland noted that 

audiometric testing was performed on his behalf on that date. In response to whether appellant 

showed sensorineural loss that was in excess of what would be normally predicated on the basis 

of presbycusis, Dr. Holland explained that, based upon a review of employing establishment 

audiograms, it was more probable than not that appellant’s hearing loss pattern was sustained 

during occupational exposure to hazardous noise levels at the employing establishment. He 

opined that presbycusis played a negligible role in hearing impairment in the higher frequencies 

demonstrated by appellant. Dr. Holland also noted that appellant was diagnosed with diabetes 

mellitus in 2010 and noted that diabetics had a substantially greater probability to demonstrate 

neurosensory hearing loss than a comparable worker without diabetes functioning in a similar 

workplace environment. He reasoned that appellant did not display low frequency and midfrequency accelerated loss either based on inherited factors, disease factors, or significant 

contributions from presbycusis. Dr. Holland diagnosed bilateral noise-induced sensorineural 

hearing loss and tinnitus and opined that it was due to appellant’s noise exposure in the course of 

his federal employment. He explained that his opinion was based upon the workplace 

audiograms and the diagnostic audiogram performed in his office. Dr. Holland also indicated 

that the descriptions of the workplace job requirements and the accompanying levels of 

hazardous noise also assisted with his determination. He recommended bilateral hearing aid 

fittings and reported zero percent tinnitus rating. Dr. Holland attached a copy of the 

December 29, 2014 audiogram. Testing for the right ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 

2,000, and 3,000 cycles per second (cps) revealed decibel losses of 15, 15, 10, and 30 

respectively. Testing for the left ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cps 

revealed decibel losses of 20, 10, 10, and 35 respectively. 

By decision dated January 12, 2015, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for binaural 

noise-induced hearing loss due to his employment-related hearing exposure. 

In an April 27, 2015 Form CA-7, claim for compensation, appellant requested a schedule 

award. 

On May 12, 2015 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed the otologic and audiologic testing 

performed on appellant by Dr. Holland and applied OWCP’s standardized procedures to his 

evaluation. He determined that maximum medical improvement was achieved on 

December 29, 2014. The medical adviser utilized the American Medical Association, Guides to 

the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (6th ed. 2009) (A.M.A., Guides) and determined that 

appellant had zero percent binaural hearing loss. He also recommended authorizing hearing aids. 

In a June 9, 2015 decision, OWCP explained that, while it had accepted appellant’s claim 

for hearing loss, it had determined that his hearing loss was not severe enough to be considered 

ratable and therefore, he was not entitled to schedule award compensation for hearing loss. It 

also explained that the medical evidence established that appellant was entitled to medical 

benefits for the effects of his injury and that he should contact them for further information 

regarding hearing aids. 
4

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA3 and its implementing 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 to all claimants, good administrative practice 

necessitates the use of a single set of tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to 

all claimants. The A.M.A., Guides has been adopted by the implementing regulations as the 

appropriate standard for evaluating schedule losses.5

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

A.M.A., Guides. Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cps, 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 points out, losses below 25 decibels result in no impairment in the ability to hear 

everyday speech under everyday conditions.6 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 and then added to the greater loss and the total is divided by six to arrive at the amount of 

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

evaluating hearing loss.7

ANALYSIS 

The evidence of record is insufficient to establish that appellant is entitled to a schedule 

award for his hearing loss in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

Dr. Holland, a Board-certified otolaryngologist and referral physician, reported on 

December 29, 2014 that appellant’s hearing loss pattern resulted from his occupational exposure 

to hazardous noise levels while employed at the employing establishment. On May 12, 2015 an 

OWCP medical adviser reviewed the otologic and audiologic testing performed on appellant by 

Dr. Holland and properly applied OWCP’s standardized procedures to this evaluation. Testing 

for the right ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cps revealed decibel 

losses of 15, 15, 10, and 30 respectively. These decibel losses were totaled at 70 decibels and 

were divided by 4 to obtain the average hearing loss of 17.5 decibels. This average loss was then 

reduced by 25 decibels (25 decibels being discounted as discussed above) to equal a negative 

figure. Testing for the left ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cps 

revealed decibel losses of 20, 10, 10, and 35 respectively. These decibel losses total 75 decibels 

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

5 Id. 

6 See A.M.A., Guides 250. 

7 E.S., 59 ECAB 249 (2007); Reynaldo R. Lichetenberger, 52 ECAB 462 (2001). 
5

and when divided by 4 result in an average hearing loss of 18.75 decibels. This average loss 

when reduced by 25 decibels (25 decibels being discounted as discussed above) equals a 

negative figure. An OWCP medical adviser properly concluded that the calculations showed that 

appellant did not have a ratable hearing loss under the relevant standards of the A.M.A., Guides. 

This does not mean that he does not have a hearing loss. It means the extent of loss is not 

sufficient to constitute a ratable impairment according to the A.M.A., Guides.

8

 The Board has 

held that, following medical evaluation of a claim, if the hearing loss is determined to be 

nonratable for schedule award purposes, other benefits such as, hearing aids, may still be 

provided if any causally related hearing loss exists.9

The Board finds that there is no current medical evidence of record supporting that 

appellant has a ratable hearing loss under OWCP’s standardized procedures for rating hearing 

impairment. Although appellant submitted a July 18, 2014 audiogram, this audiogram is of no 

probative medical value because it was not certified by a physician as accurate.10

Appellant may request a 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 did not meet his burden of proof to establish that he is 

entitled to a schedule award for hearing loss. 

 8 See J.S., Docket No. 12-967 (issued October 12, 2012). 

9 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Medical Services and Supplies, Chapter 3.400.3(d)(2) 

(October 1995); Raymond VanNett, 44 ECAB 480 (1993). 

10 See Joshua A. Holmes, 42 ECAB 231, 236 (1990) (if an audiogram is prepared by an audiologist, it must be 

certified by a physician as being accurate before it can be used to determine the percentage of hearing loss); see also 

James A. England, 47 ECAB 115, 118 (1995) (finding that an audiogram not certified by a physician as accurate has 

no probative value and OWCP need not review uncertified audiograms). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the June 9, 2015 decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: January 19, 2016 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board