United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

R.M., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 

Washington, DC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0752

Issued: December 6, 2019

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 February 26, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 16, 2018 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 more than zero 

percent monaural hearing loss in his right ear and more than two percent monaural hearing loss in 

his left ear, for which he previously received a schedule award.

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 28, 2016 appellant, then a 56-year-old airway transportation systems specialist, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed “abnormal hearing 

ability” due to factors of his federal employment including high levels of noise exposure while 

working at a high capacity airport. He noted that he first became aware of the condition and of its 

relationship to his federal employment on May 13, 2016. Appellant did not stop work and was 

last exposed to the employment factors on June 24, 2016. 

On October 11, 2016 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral effects of noise 

exposure of the inner ears. In a form report dated July 30, 2014, Dr. Marc Leffer, Board-certified 

in occupational medicine, noted that appellant had abnormal results on an audiogram taken on 

May 15, 2013. He recommended a hearing evaluation. Dr. Leffer noted that appellant had 

significant high-frequency hearing loss in both ears. 

OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), and an otologic 

evaluation questionnaire for a second opinion evaluation with Dr. Steven R. Gold, a Boardcertified otolaryngologist. In a report dated September 26, 2016, Dr. Gold reviewed the SOAF, 

performed an audiological examination, and completed OWCP’s evaluation questionnaire. He

reviewed appellant’s audiogram, which demonstrated at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hertz (Hz) 

losses of 5, 10, 35, and 50 decibels (dBs) on the right, respectively, and 5, 15, 35, and 50 dBs on 

the left, respectively. The audiogram was performed by an audiologist who documented timely 

calibration of testing equipment. Dr. Gold diagnosed bilateral moderate high-frequency 

sensorineural hearing loss, slightly greater on the left, and bilateral tinnitus. He attributed his 

sensorineural hearing loss to noise exposure at work. Dr. Gold opined that “about 26 percent” of 

appellant’s sensorineural hearing loss was due to noise exposure encountered in appellant’s federal 

employment. He recommended hearing aids. 

On October 4, 2016 OWCP forwarded the medical record and SOAF to a district medical 

adviser (DMA) for calculation of appellant’s percentage of permanent hearing impairment and 

assignment of the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI). On October 8, 2016 the DMA

reviewed the otologic and audiologic testing performed on behalf of Dr. Gold and applied OWCP’s 

standardized procedures to his evaluation, utilizing the sixth edition of the American Medical 

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides).2 He 

determined that MMI occurred on September 26, 2016, the date of the most recent audiogram. 

The DMA calculated that the average threshold of the four frequencies of the right ear was 25, 

which minus the threshold fence of 25 decibels, resulted in a total monaural right ear hearing loss 

of zero percent. The average threshold of the four frequencies of the left ear was 26.25, which

minus the threshold fence of 25 decibels, resulted in a remaining percentage of 1.25. This figure 

was multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at a total loss of 1.88 percent of the left ear monaural hearing loss. 

The binaural hearing loss was calculated by multiplying the zero hearing loss of the right ear by 5, 

resulting in zero, then adding the greater loss of 1.88 and dividing the total by 6, resulting in 0.3

percent binaural hearing loss. The DMA recommended authorization for hearing aids. 

 

2 A.M.A., Guides (6th ed. 2009).
3

On October 18, 2016 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). In support 

thereof, he resubmitted the September 26, 2016 audiogram and report from Dr. Gold. 

On December 7, 2016 OWCP authorized a binaural hearing loss examination for 

consideration of the need for hearing aids.3

In a schedule award payment memorandum, OWCP noted that paying left ear hearing loss 

was more advantageous to appellant, as 2 percent rating for the left ear resulted in 7.28 days of 

compensation, while a 0.3 percent binaural rating resulted in no schedule award compensation. 

By decision dated January 16, 2018, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for two

percent monaural hearing loss of the left ear. The period of the award was for 1.04 weeks to run 

during the period September 26 to October 3, 2016. OWCP also found zero percent hearing loss 

of the right ear. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA4and its implementing regulations5set 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.6 

The A.M.A., Guides have been adopted by the implementing regulations as the appropriate 

standard for evaluating schedule losses.7

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

A.M.A., Guides.

8

 Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, the losses at each 

frequency are added up and averaged. Then, the fence of 25 dBs is deducted because, as the 

A.M.A., Guides point out, losses below 25 dBs result in no impairment in the ability to hear 

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

 

3

In a report dated February 23, 2017, Courtney Matthews, an audiologist, noted that appellant had been fitted with 

hearing aids on that date. She noted that OWCP had been billed for the hearing aids. 

4 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

6 See D.K., Docket No. 10-0174 (issued July 2, 2010); Michael S. Mina, 57 ECAB 379, 385 (2006).

7 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 (January 2010); see also

Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 2.808.6 (March 2017).

8 See A.M.A., Guides 250 (6th ed. 2009).
4

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

loss.9

It is well established that, if calculations based on the monaural hearing loss would result 

in greater compensation than calculations for binaural loss, then the monaural hearing loss 

calculations should be used.10

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish more than zero 

percent monaural hearing loss in his right ear and more than two percent monaural hearing loss in 

his left ear, for which he previously received a schedule award.

OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for two percent permanent monaural hearing 

loss of the left ear, based upon the September 26, 2016 report of Dr. Gold, as reviewed by the 

DMA. The losses at the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz were added and averaged, 

and the fence of 25 decibels was deducted.11 The remaining amount was multiplied by a factor of 

1.5 to arrive at the percentage of monaural hearing loss. For levels recorded in the right ear of 5, 

10, 35, and 50, the above formula derives zero percent monaural loss. For levels recorded in the 

left ear of 5, 15, 35, and 50, the above formula derives 1.88 percent monaural loss. Appellant’s 

right ear hearing loss was, therefore, not ratable.

While section 8107(c)(13) provides separate calculations for loss of hearing in one ear and 

for loss of hearing in both,12 as noted above, if calculations based on the monaural hearing loss 

would result in greater compensation than calculations for binaural loss, then the monaural hearing 

loss calculations should be used.13 In this case, appellant’s compensation is greater under the 

procedures used for calculating monaural hearing loss. FECA provides that a claimant is entitled 

to 52 weeks of compensation for 100 percent loss of hearing in one ear and 200 weeks 

compensation for 100 percent hearing loss in both ears.14 Appellant’s binaural hearing loss was 

0.3 percent; multiplying 200 weeks by 0.3 percent results in less than a single day of compensation, 

which OWCP properly rounded down to zero in its calculations.15 Appellant’s left ear monaural 

loss was 2 percent; multiplying 52 weeks by 2 percent results in 1.04 weeks of compensation, or 

 

9

J.H., Docket No. 08-2432 (issued June 15, 2009); J.B., Docket No. 08-1735 (issued January 27, 2009).

10 B.B., Docket No. 16-0512 (issued May 17, 2016); Reynoldo R. Lichtenberger, 52 ECAB 462 (2001).

11 See M.P., Docket No. 17-1736 (issued February 14, 2018).

12 5 U.S.C. § 8107(c)(13).

13 Supra note 9.

14 Supra note 11.

15 The policy of OWCP is to round the calculated percentage of impairment to the nearest whole number. Results 

should be rounded down for figures less than .5 and up for .5 and over. See V.M., Docket No. 18-1800 (issued April 23, 

2019); J.H., supra note 9; Robert E. Cullison, 55 ECAB 570 (2004). See also Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, 

supra note 7 at Chapter 3.700.3(b) (January 2010).
5

7.28 days. As the monaural loss results in a greater compensation, the Board finds that OWCP 

correctly issued a schedule award based on his monaural left ear hearing impairment.16

Therefore, the Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater 

than zero percent monaural hearing loss in his right ear and two percent monaural hearing loss in 

his left ear, for which he previously received a schedule award.

Appellant may request a schedule award or an increased schedule award at any time 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 has not met his burden of proof to establish more than zero 

percent monaural hearing loss in his right ear and more than two percent monaural hearing loss in 

his left ear, for which he previously received a schedule award.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 16, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 6, 2019

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

 

16 See W.C., Docket No. 18-0290 (issued July 13, 2018).