United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

J.K., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET 

SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, Bremerton, WA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0321 

Issued: April 24, 2017 

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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On November 29, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 26, 2016 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 has met his burden of proof to establish ratable binaural 

hearing loss warranting a schedule award. 

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP’s decision was unjust and he should have been 

granted a schedule award since his work-related hearing loss has significantly changed his 

quality of life. 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 23, 2015 appellant, then a 56-year-old supervisory waterfront safety specialist, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) for hearing loss. He alleged that on May 27, 

2015 he first became aware of a threshold shift in both ears and realized that his condition was 

caused or aggravated by his federal employment based on an audiologist’s report. 

By letter dated July 1, 2015, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed to 

establish his claim. It also requested that the employing establishment respond to his allegations 

and provide noise survey reports for each site where he worked, the sources and period of noise 

exposure for each location, whether he wore ear protection, and copies of all medical 

examinations pertaining to hearing or ear problems, including preemployment examinations and 

audiograms. 

In a June 23, 2015 statement, appellant noted that he was a gun owner, but that he only 

shot his gun about twice a year and used foam earplugs. He related that he had not previously 

seen a physician regarding his hearing loss. Appellant indicated that during an annual hearing 

test conducted by the employing establishment on May 27, 2015, an attending audiologist 

informed him that he had significant hearing loss. The audiologist also informed him that he was 

too young to have that level of hearing loss from natural degradation. 

Appellant submitted employment records which included his work history and exposure 

to noise from June 1975 through the present. He also submitted a description of his supervisory 

waterfront safety specialist position. 

In letters dated August 3, 2015, the employing establishment noted that appellant was 

currently employed as a supervisor waterfront safety specialist. It further noted that he had been 

in a hearing conservation program from 1989 through the present. The employing establishment 

related that appellant was exposed to noise as described in his position description. Appellant 

was provided with hearing protection during his employment. 

OWCP received audiograms dated November 21, 1989 through May 27, 2015 performed 

by the employing establishment as part of the hearing conservation program. These revealed that 

appellant had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. 

By letter dated October 7, 2015, OWCP informed appellant of his referral for a second 

opinion evaluation with an otolaryngologist, along with a statement of accepted facts, a set of 

questions, and the medical record. 

In a letter dated October 8, 2015, OWCP’s medical scheduler informed appellant, that an 

examination was scheduled with Dr. Gerald G. Randolph, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, for 

November 3, 2015. In a November 3, 2015 medical report, Dr. Randolph noted that he had 

examined appellant on that date and referenced his exposure to workplace noise. He reported 

appellant’s complaints of hearing loss and intermittent tinnitus and noted his medical, family, 

and socioeconomic background. Dr. Randolph reviewed the employing establishment’s 

audiometric data. He reported that his examination of appellant’s external auditory canals and 

tympanic membranes was normal. Basic tuning fork tests revealed that the Weber test did not 
3

lateralize. Air conduction was greater than bone conduction bilaterally. There was no indication 

of medical conditions, such as acoustic neuroma or Meniere’s disease. Dr. Randolph noted that 

an audiogram performed on the date of his examination revealed hearing loss with an 

audiometric configuration compatible with hearing loss due to noise exposure. He diagnosed 

bilateral sensorineural hearing loss that was in part, or all, due to noise exposure in appellant’s 

federal civil employment. Dr. Randolph recommended bilateral hearing aids. 

The November 3, 2015 audiogram performed on behalf of Dr. Randolph reflected testing 

at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz (Hz) and revealed the following: 

right ear 5, 5, 20, and 50 decibels (dBs), respectively; left ear 5, 5, 20, and 45 dBs, respectively. 

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

Permanent Impairment2

 (A.M.A., Guides), Dr. Randolph determined that appellant had zero 

percent ratable hearing loss in both ears. 

On December 21, 2015 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral noise effects on 

the inner ear. 

In a January 11, 2016 letter, Amy M. Becken, a certified audiologist, advised OWCP that 

hearing test results showed that appellant had severe high frequency sensorineural hearing loss 

bilaterally. She noted that speech reception thresholds were consistent with pure tone averages 

calculated for each ear. Ms. Becken found that speech discrimination scores were reduced in 

both ears. She noted the acceptance of appellant’s claim for bilateral hearing loss and requested 

authorization for hearing devices based on his communication issues. 

On July 15, 2016 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

On July 25, 2016 an OWCP district medical adviser (DMA) reviewed Dr. Randolph’s 

report and the November 3, 2015 audiometric test. He agreed that appellant had zero percent 

binaural hearing loss under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. The DMA totaled the dB 

losses for the right ear of 5, 5, 20, and 50 at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, respectively, to 

equal 80. He averaged the losses to determine that appellant had an average hearing loss of 20 

dBs. The DMA then subtracted a 25-dB fence and multiplied the balance of -5 by 1.5 to find 

zero percent right ear monaural hearing loss. For the left ear, he added the dB losses of 5, 5, 20, 

and 45 at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, respectively, to equal 75. The DMA averaged the 

losses to determine that appellant had an average hearing loss of 18.75 dBs. He then subtracted a 

25-dB fence and multiplied the balance of -6.25 by 1.5 to find zero percent left ear monaural 

hearing loss. The DMA concluded that appellant had no ratable hearing impairment. He noted 

the date of maximum medical improvement as November 16, 2015. The DMA recommended 

annual audiograms and noise protection for appellant’s ears and authorized hearing aids. 

In a decision dated October 26, 2016, OWCP found that, although appellant’s hearing 

loss was employment related, it was not severe enough to be considered ratable for purposes of a 

schedule award. It authorized additional medical benefits, including hearing aids. 

 2

 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009). 
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.

6

 Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per second, the 

losses at each frequency are added up and averaged.7 Then, the fence of 25 dBs is deducted 

because, as the A.M.A., Guides points out, losses below 25 dBs result in no impairment in the 

ability to hear everyday speech under everyday conditions.8

 The remaining amount is multiplied 

by a factor of 1.5 to arrive at the percentage of monaural hearing loss.9

 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 the binaural hearing loss.10 The Board has concurred in OWCP’s adoption of this 

standard for evaluating hearing loss.11

OWCP procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file 

should be routed to OWCP’s DMA for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage in 

accordance with the A.M.A., Guides with the DMA providing rationale for the percentage of 

impairment specified.12

 3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

5 Id. See also Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 139 (2002). 

6 Supra note 2. 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. 

11 Donald E. Stockstad, 53 ECAB 301 (2002), petition for recon. granted (modifying prior decision), Docket No. 

01-1570 (issued August 13, 2002); Reynaldo R. Lichtenberger, 52 ECAB 462 (2001). 

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

Chapter 2.808.6(f) (February 2013). 
5

ANALYSIS 

The Board finds that appellant has not established ratable binaural hearing loss. 

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Randolph, a second opinion physician, regarding his 

hearing loss. Dr. Randolph’s November 3, 2015 examination found that appellant’s bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss was due to his workplace noise exposure. The audiogram performed 

on that date revealed dB losses of 5, 5, 20, and 50 at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, 

respectively, for the right ear. Testing of the left ear revealed dB losses of 5, 5, 20, and 45 at 

500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, respectively. Dr. Randolph found zero percent hearing loss in 

both ears. 

Consistent with its procedures, OWCP properly referred the file to its DMA for a rating 

of permanent impairment in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides. 

On July 25, 2016 OWCP’s DMA reviewed Dr. Randolph’s report and the November 3, 

2015 audiogram and concluded that appellant had no ratable hearing loss to warrant a schedule 

award. The DMA, properly added the right ear dBs losses to reach 80 and averaged this sum to 

reach 20. He then subtracted the fence of 25 as directed by the A.M.A., Guides to reach -5 and 

multiplied this amount by 1.5 to reach zero percent monaural loss for the right ear. The DMA 

added the left ear dBs losses to total 75 and averaged this sum to total 18.75. He then subtracted 

the fence of 25 to reach -6.25 and multiplied this amount by 1.5 to reach zero percent monaural 

loss for the left ear. As the monaural hearing loss rating was zero percent for both the right and 

left ears, the binaural hearing loss was also zero percent.13 This does not mean that appellant has 

no hearing loss. Rather, it means that the extent or degree of loss is insufficient to show a ratable 

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

14 The A.M.A., Guides set a threshold 

for impairment and appellant’s occupational hearing loss did not cross that threshold. The Board 

finds that the DMA applied the proper standards to the November 3, 2015 audiogram to 

determine that appellant had no ratable, work related, binaural hearing loss for schedule award 

purposes.15 

Although appellant submitted results from the employing establishment’s annual 

audiometric testing from November 21, 1989 to May 27, 2015, these audiograms do not comply 

with the requirements set forth by OWCP. They lack proper certification of calibration, speech 

testing, and bone conduction scores and were not prepared or certified as accurate by a physician 

as defined by FECA. Further, the audiograms were not accompanied by a physician’s opinion 

addressing how appellant’s employment-related noise exposure caused or aggravated any 

hearing loss. It is appellant’s burden to submit a properly prepared and certified audiogram to 

 13 A.M.A., Guides 249-51. 

14 See P.V., Docket No. 13-1870 (issued January 7, 2014). 

15 See S.G., 58 ECAB 383 (2007). 
6

OWCP.16 OWCP was not required to rely on this evidence in determining the degree of 

appellant’s hearing loss as it failed to constitute competent medical evidence.17

The January 11, 2015 report from Ms. Becken, an audiologist, has no probative medical 

value because an audiologist is not considered a physician as defined under FECA.18 

On appeal, appellant contends that OWCP’s decision was unjust and he should have been 

awarded a schedule award since his work-related hearing loss has significantly changed his 

quality of life. However, the Board has held that factors such as employability or limitations on 

daily activities have no bearing on the calculation of impairment.19 For the reasons stated, the 

Board finds that appellant has not established ratable employment-related binaural hearing loss 

for schedule award purposes. 

Appellant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award at any time based 

on evidence of a new exposure or medical evidence showing progression of an employmentrelated condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment. 

CONCLUSION 

The Board finds that appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish ratable 

binaural hearing loss warranting a schedule award. 

 16 See R.B., Docket No. 10-1512 (issued March 24, 2011); Robert E. Cullison, 55 ECAB 570 (2004); Vincent 

Holmes, 53 ECAB 468 (2002) (OWCP does not have to review audiograms not certified by a physician. See also 

J.B., Docket No. 12-0607 (issued August 9, 2012); 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2) (defines the term physician). 

17 Id. See also H.M., Docket No. 13-1061 (issued July 29, 2013); M.T., Docket No. 12-1294 (issued 

December 6, 2012). 

18 5 U.S.C. § 8101(2); M.P., Docket No. 13-1790 (issued December 17, 2013) (an audiologist is not considered a 

physician under FECA and the audiologist’s opinion regarding the medical cause of a claimant’s hearing loss is of 

no probative medical value). 

19 J.H., Docket No. 08-2432 (issued June 15, 2009). 
7

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 26, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: April 24, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board