United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

R.S., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU 

OF RECLAMATION, Grand Coulee, WA, 

Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 17-0603 

Issued: July 17, 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 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JURISDICTION 

On January 23, 2017 appellant, filed a timely appeal from a January 3, 2017 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 to consider the merits of this case. 

ISSUE 

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish a ratable hearing 

loss. 

FACTUAL HISTORY 

On June 14, 2016 appellant, then a 56-year-old hydromechanic, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging permanent hearing loss due to exposure at work. He first 

 1

 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq. 
2

became aware of his hearing loss on January 21, 2009 and realized that it was causally related to 

his employment on April 1, 2010. Appellant did not stop work and continued to be exposed to 

noise. 

Appellant submitted an employment history and noted that from 1980 to 1984 he worked 

for the United States Navy Aviation Structure as a mechanic and welder. He was exposed to 

noise from shop equipment and welding machines. Hearing protection was supplied. From 1984 

to 1995, appellant worked for Exotic Metals Forming Company, an aircraft parts manufacturer, 

as a welder where he was exposed to noise from sheet metal shop equipment and welders. He 

was provided hearing protection. From 1995 to 2004, appellant was the owner of Always 

Welding CEO, an Aircraft parts manufacturer, and was exposed to noise from shop equipment 

eight hours a day. Hearing protection was worn. From 2004 to the present, appellant worked for 

the employing establishment as a hydromechanic. He worked on power generators 4 to 10 hours 

a day and he was exposed to noise from nine generators. Hearing protection was supplied and 

worn. Appellant submitted a job description for a hydromechanic and also his resume. 

Appellant submitted a comprehensive hearing test report performed pursuant to the 

employing establishment hearing conservation program dated May 9, 2016, which revealed no 

major change in appellant’s hearing compared to his baseline test at date of employment. The 

audiologist, however, noted that the difference in hearing between appellant’s left and right ears 

indicated that his hearing should be retested using a masking procedure in order to accurately 

identify hearing levels. 

By letter dated June 22, 2016, OWCP advised appellant of the type of evidence needed to 

establish his claim. In a letter of the same date, it requested that the employing establishment 

address the sources of appellant’s noise exposure, decibel and frequency level, period of 

exposure, and hearing protection provided. 

On July 11, 2016 appellant responded to OWCP’s questionnaire and indicated that he 

was still exposed to hazardous noise at work every day from 89 to 97 decibels. He first noticed 

his hearing loss on April 1, 2010. Appellant first related his hearing loss to work exposure after 

he experienced ringing in his ears and there was a drop on his comprehensive hearing report. He 

noted never filing a hearing loss claim, never having hearing problems, and not participating in 

hobbies which involved exposure to loud noises. 

On September 14, 2016 OWCP referred appellant, together with a statement of accepted 

facts, which noted appellant’s noise exposure history, to Dr. Randall Fong, a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist, for an otologic examination and an audiological evaluation. In an October 25, 

2016 report, Dr. Fong noted examining appellant on October 25, 2016 and referenced appellant’s 

exposure to workplace noise. He reviewed the employing establishment’s audiometric data and 

noted that appellant had progressive hearing loss, gradual worsening in the right ear at the 3,000 

hertz (Hz) range and a gradual worsening in the left ear at the 4,000 Hz range. Dr. Fong 

diagnosed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Examination of the ears revealed bilateral 

unremarkable auricles, external auditory canals, and tympanic membranes. External auditory 

canals and auricles were clear and the nasal canal, oral cavity, oropharynx, and hypopharynx 

were clear. Dr. Fong noted appellant’s hearing at the beginning of his federal employment 
3

revealed preexisting hearing loss, and a moderate high frequency loss at 3000 Hz and higher in 

the left ear and moderate at 4000 Hz in the right. He opined that this loss could have resulted 

from appellant’s occupations prior to 2004. Dr. Fong noted that appellant’s present audiometric 

findings compared to the beginning of exposure show that there was a slight worsening in both 

ears at the higher frequencies. He opined that this change could be related to the additional noise 

exposure from 2004 while working at the employing establishment on a more-probable-than-not 

basis. Dr. Fong noted that appellant had bilateral sensorineural loss that was in excess of what 

would be normally predicated on the basis of presbycusis. He opined that the workplace 

exposure was of sufficient intensity and duration to have caused the sensorineural hearing loss. 

Dr. Fong recommended bilateral hearing aids and opined that the need for the hearing aids, as 

well as the additional hearing loss, was related in part to his exposure to noise while employed 

with the Federal Government. Audiometric testing was performed for Dr. Fong on 

October 25, 2016. Testing at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per 

second revealed the following: right ear 10, 15, 15, and 35 decibels; left ear 5, 10, 20, and 60 

decibels. 

On November 3, 2016 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral sensorineural 

hearing loss due to noise exposure. It noted that the record established that he would benefit 

from hearing aids. 

On November 9, 2016 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

On November 16, 2016 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed Dr. Fong’s report and the 

audiometric test of October 25, 2016. He concluded that, in accordance with the sixth edition of 

the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment,2

(A.M.A., Guides), appellant had zero percent monaural hearing loss in each ear and zero percent 

binaural hearing loss. The medical adviser determined that appellant’s hearing loss was not 

severe enough to be ratable for a schedule award after applying OWCP’s standards for 

evaluating hearing loss to the results of the October 25, 2016 audiogram. He noted that appellant 

reached maximum medical improvement on October 25, 2016. 

In a decision dated January 3, 2017, 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 a hearing aid evaluation and fitting bilaterally. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT 

The schedule award provision of FECA3

 and its implementing regulation4 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 

 2

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

3

 5 U.S.C. § 8107. 

4

 20 C.F.R. § 10.404 (1999). 
4

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 regulation 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 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.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’s procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file 

should be routed to OWCP’s medical adviser for an opinion concerning the nature and 

percentage of impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with the medical adviser 

providing rationale for the percentage of impairment specified.12 It may follow the advice of its 

medical adviser or consultant where he or she has properly utilized the A.M.A., Guides.

13 

ANALYSIS 

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained bilateral hearing loss due to noise exposure from 

his federal employment. The issue is whether he has submitted sufficient evidence for a schedule 

award by establishing a ratable impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides. 

OWCP properly referred appellant to Dr. Fong regarding his hearing loss. Dr. Fong’s 

October 25, 2016 examination found that appellant’s bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was due 

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

6

 A.M.A., Guides at 250 (6th ed. 2009). 

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). 

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

Chapter 2.808.6(f) (February 2013). 

13 See Ronald J. Pavlik, 33 ECAB 1596 (1982). 
5

to his workplace noise exposure. On November 16, 2016 an OWCP medical adviser reviewed 

Dr. Fong’s report and found that the hearing loss was not ratable for schedule award purposes. 

He applied their standardized procedures to the October 25, 2016 audiogram performed for 

Dr. Fong to determine if appellant’s hearing loss was ratable for schedule award purposes. 

Testing for the right ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per 

second revealed decibels losses of 10, 15, 15, and 35, respectively. These decibels were totaled 

at 75 and were divided by 4 to obtain an average hearing loss at those cycles of 18.75 decibels. 

The average of 18.75 decibels was then reduced by 25 decibels (the first 25 decibels were 

discounted as discussed above) to equal zero percent hearing loss for the right ear. 

Testing for the left ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000 These decibels were totaled 

at 95 and were divided by 4 to obtain the average hearing loss at those cycles of 23.75 decibels. 

The average of 23.75 decibels was then reduced by 25 decibels (the first 25 decibels were 

discounted as discussed above) to equal 0 which was multiplied by the established factor of 1.5 

to compute a zero percent hearing loss for the left ear. Thus, OWCP’s medical adviser 

concluded that appellant had no permanent impairment of his hearing that warranted a schedule 

award. 

Appellant has not submitted any medical report establishing a percentage of hearing loss 

which would refute the opinion of Dr. Fong and the medical adviser. The Board therefore finds 

that appellant does not have a ratable hearing loss under OWCP’s standardized procedures for 

rating hearing loss. 

Appellant may, at any time, request a schedule award or increased schedule award 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 OWCP properly denied appellant’s claim for a schedule award for 

hearing loss. 
6

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 3, 2017 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: July 17, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board