United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

A.A., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, FLEET 

FORCES COMMAND, Portsmouth, VA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 16-1208 

Issued: June 20, 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 May 18, 2016 appellant filed a timely appeal from an April 11, 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 met his burden of proof to establish hearing loss causally 

related to factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On February 9, 2016 appellant, a 61-year-old structural zone manager, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral hearing loss as a 

result of employment-related noise exposure. He stated that he first became aware of his 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

condition and related it to his federal employment on October 14, 2003. Appellant worked full 

time at the employing establishment as a ship fitter mechanic from May 1979 to July 2003, ship 

fitter supervisor from July 2003 to January 2009, and structural zone manager from January 2009 

to January 1, 2016. He indicated that he was exposed to various pneumatic tools, motors, and 

engine noises and wore earplugs during the course of his federal employment. Appellant retired 

on January 1, 2016. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an audiogram dated October 23, 2015. 

By letter dated February 16, 2016, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s 

claim arguing that he had not timely filed his hearing loss claim and argued that he wore hearing 

protection during his employment. 

In a February 19, 2016 letter, OWCP requested additional factual information from both 

appellant and the employing establishment. Appellant was requested to provide information 

regarding his employment history, when he related his hearing loss to conditions of employment, 

and all nonoccupational exposures to noise. OWCP also requested that appellant provide 

medical documentation pertaining to any prior treatment he received for ear or hearing problems. 

It requested that the employing establishment provide noise survey reports for each site where he 

worked, the sources and periods of noise exposure for each location, and copies of all medical 

examinations pertaining to hearing or ear problems. 

On February 25, 2016 appellant stated that his nonfederal employment included work as 

a warehouseman from January 1975 to May 1979 and a part-time ship fitter in May 1985. He 

indicated that he was exposed to noise at both jobs and did not wear any type of safety device. 

OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), and the case record to 

Dr. Wayne Shaia, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, for a second opinion evaluation on 

April 4, 2016. Audiometric testing performed that same date revealed the following decibel (dB) 

losses at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hertz: 55, 65, 80, and 85 for the right ear and 20, 20, 20, 

and 20 for the left ear. The report established that appellant had 69.4 percent hearing loss in the 

right ear and no hearing loss in the left ear. Dr. Shaia diagnosed right sudden sensorineural 

hearing loss and opined that appellant’s condition was not due to noise exposure encountered in 

his federal employment. He found no audiometric data available from the beginning of 

appellant’s work-related noise exposure and explained that the hearing loss in the right ear was 

in excess of what would be normally predicted with presbycusis. Appellant stated that his 

hearing loss began suddenly in 2003 and did not return. He had sought medical attention and a 

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan which was found to be normal. Dr. Shaia noted that 

appellant’s hearing loss was unilateral in nature, not a noise-induced hearing loss pattern. He 

explained that it was unlikely that workplace noise exposure would cause appellant to lose 

hearing preferentially in one ear, as there was no inciting event for such loss. Dr. Shaia 

concluded that appellant had sustained a sudden sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear, which 

was unrelated to his federal employment. 

By decision dated April 11, 2016, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that he sustained hearing loss causally 

related to his federal employment. 
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

An original claim for compensation for disability or death must be filed within three 

years after the injury or death.2 A claim filed outside this time frame must be disallowed unless 

the immediate superior had actual knowledge of the injury or death within 30 days.3

 In a case of 

latent disability, the time for filing a claim does not begin to run until the employee has a 

compensable disability and is aware or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been 

aware of the causal relationship of the compensable disability to his or her employment.4

 An 

employee with actual or constructive knowledge of an employment-related condition, who 

continues to be exposed to injurious working conditions, must file a claim within three years of 

the date of last exposure to the implicated conditions.5

 A positive test result from an employing 

establishment program of regular audiometric examinations is sufficient to establish knowledge 

of a hearing loss so as to put the immediate superior on notice of an on-the-job injury.6

An employee seeking benefits under FECA has the burden of proof to establish 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 timely filed within the 

applicable time limitation period of FECA, and that an injury7

 was sustained in the performance 

of duty. These are the essential elements of each compensation claim, regardless of whether the 

claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.8

A claimant has the burden of proof to establish by the weight of the reliable, probative, 

and substantial evidence that his or her hearing loss was causally related to noise exposure in his 

federal employment.9

 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.10

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, an employee must submit the following: (1) a factual statement identifying 

employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the 

disease or condition; (2) medical evidence establishing the presence or existence of the disease or 

 2 Id. at § 8122(a). 

3 Id. at § 8122(a)(1).

4 Id. at § 8122(b). 

5 E.g., James A. Sheppard, 55 ECAB 515, 518 (2004); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Time, 

Chapter 2.801.6 (March 1993). 

6 See James A. Sheppard, id.; Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, id. at Chapter 2.801.6c. 

7

 OWCP regulations define an occupational disease or illness as a condition produced by the work environment 

over a period longer than a single workday or shift. 20 C.F.R. § 10.5(q). 

8 See O.W., Docket No. 09-2110 (issued April 22, 2010); Ellen L. Noble, 55 ECAB 530 (2004). 

9 See Stanley K. Takahaski, 35 ECAB 1065 (1984). 

10 See John W. Butler, 39 ECAB 852, 858 (1988). 
4

condition for which compensation is claimed; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the 

diagnosed condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the employee.11

Causal relationship is a medical issue and the medical evidence generally required to 

establish causal relationship is rationalized medical evidence. The opinion of the physician must 

be based on a complete factual and medical background of the employee, must be one of 

reasonable medical 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.12

ANALYSIS 

Appellant claimed to have been aware of his employment-related hearing loss on or about 

October 14, 2003. However, based on his reported employment history, appellant’s occupational 

noise exposure continued until his retirement, effective January 1, 2016. After retiring, appellant 

filed the current occupational disease claim on February 9, 2016, which was within three years of 

the date of last exposure to the implicated conditions.13 Therefore, the Board finds that 

appellant’s claim was timely filed. 

The Board also finds, however, that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish 

hearing loss causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

The Board has recognized that a claimant may be entitled to a schedule award for hearing 

loss, even after exposure to hazardous noise has ceased, if causal relationship is supported by the 

medical evidence of record.14 The Board also notes that there is no requirement that the federal 

employment be the only cause of appellant’s hearing loss. If work-related exposures caused, 

aggravated, or accelerated his condition, he is entitled to compensation.15 In this case, however, 

there was no medical evidence before OWCP at the time of its April 11, 2016 decision 

containing an opinion that appellant’s hearing loss was work related. 

OWCP developed the medical evidence and referred appellant to Dr. Shaia for a second 

opinion examination. While he diagnosed right sudden sensorineural hearing loss, Dr. Shaia 

opined that appellant’s hearing loss was not due to noise exposure in his federal employment. 

He found no audiometric data available from the beginning of appellant’s work-related noise 

exposure and explained that the hearing loss in the right ear was in excess of what would be 

normally predicted with presbycusis. Appellant explained to Dr. Shaia that his hearing loss had 

begun suddenly in 2003 and did not return. He had sought medical attention, but the 2003 MRI 

scan was found to be normal. Audiometric testing performed on April 4, 2016 established that 

appellant had a 69.4 percent hearing loss in the right ear and no hearing loss in the left ear. 

 11 See D.R., Docket No. 09-1723 (issued May 20, 2010). 

12 See O.W., supra note 8. 

13 See supra note 5. 

14 See J.R., 59 ECAB 710, 713 (2008). 

15 See Beth P. Chaput, 37 ECAB 158, 161 (1985); S.S., Docket No. 08-2386 (issued June 5, 2008). 
5

Dr. Shaia noted that appellant’s hearing loss was unilateral in nature, which is not a noiseinduced hearing loss pattern. He explained that it was unlikely that workplace noise exposure 

would cause appellant to lose hearing preferentially in one ear, as there was no inciting event to 

account for this. Dr. Shaia concluded that appellant sustained a sudden sensorineural hearing 

loss in the right ear, which was unrelated to his federal employment. 

In support of his claim, appellant submitted an audiogram dated October 23, 2015. This 

report is of limited probative value and insufficient to establish the claim as it does not 

specifically address whether his diagnosed conditions are causally related to his workplace noise 

exposure.16 The Board finds that appellant has not submitted any medical evidence supportive of 

a causal relationship between his federal employment and his hearing loss, and thus has not met 

his burden of proof to establish such a causal relationship.17

An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or on 

the employee’s own belief of causal relation.18 In the instant case, the record is without 

rationalized medical evidence establishing causal relationship between appellant’s occupational 

noise exposure and his hearing loss. Thus, appellant has failed to meet his burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a 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 has not met his burden of proof to establish hearing loss 

causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

 16 See K.W., 59 ECAB 271 (2007); A.D., 58 ECAB 149 (2006); Linda I. Sprague, 48 ECAB 386 (1997) (medical 

evidence that does not offer any opinion regarding the cause of an employee’s condition is of limited probative 

value on the issue of causal relationship). 

17 See R.S., Docket No. 14-1995 (issued February 25, 2015). 

18 See M.H., Docket No. 16-0228 (issued June 8, 2016). 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the April 11, 2016 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: June 20, 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