United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

W.T., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Vicksburg, MS, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 17-1723

Issued: March 20, 2018

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On August 3, 2017 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 17, 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 over 

the merits of the claim.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant met his burden of proof to establish ratable hearing loss, 

warranting a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On November 29, 2016 appellant, then a 59-year-old line foreman, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) for bilateral sensorineural hearing loss which he attributed to daily 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

exposure to loud noises in the workplace. He first became aware of his condition on July 14, 2014 

and realized that it was caused or aggravated by factors of his federal employment on 

December 14, 2015. Appellant indicated that he was an engineering equipment operator where 

the noise was constant most of the time. He further indicated that he wore ear protection to 

minimize the effect of the machine noise.

In a development letter dated December 12, 2016, OWCP requested that appellant submit 

additional factual information pertaining to his job exposure which he believed contributed to his 

hearing condition. Further, in a December 12, 2016 letter, it requested additional information from 

the employing establishment, including copies of all medical examinations pertaining to hearing 

or ear problems, including preemployment examination and all audiograms.

OWCP received a copy of a December 14, 2015 audiogram, appellant’s audiogram record 

from August 21, 2013 to September 4, 2015, and a copy of appellant’s job history from 1979 

to 2016.

On March 13, 2017 OWCP referred the case record, including a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) and lists of questions, to Dr. Bryan M. Clay, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, for a 

second opinion evaluation. In an April 4, 2017 report, Dr. Clay examined appellant and 

administered an audiogram. He diagnosed bilateral mid-high and high-frequency sensorineural 

hearing loss. Dr. Clay indicated that appellant’s sensorineural hearing loss was due in part to his 

chronic exposure to loud noises in his federal civilian employment. He further found that based 

on the results of the April 4, 2017 audiogram the impairment calculations under the American 

Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment2(A.M.A., Guides) 

revealed a monaural loss of zero in each ear, as well as a binaural loss of zero. Dr. Clay also 

indicated that there was tinnitus present.

By decision dated April 14, 2017, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss, with a July 14, 2014 date of injury.

On April 14, 2017 OWCP also referred the case record, including Dr. Clay’s April 4, 2017 

report and audiogram, to a medical adviser to determine whether appellant had a ratable hearing 

loss under the A.M.A., Guides.

In a May 1, 2017 report, Dr. Charles Pettit, a Board-certified otolaryngologist and OWCP 

medical adviser, reviewed appellant’s medical records, the SOAF, and Dr. Clay’s April 4, 2017 

report and audiogram. He stated that, although hazardous conditions were frequent, noise 

exposure did not appear in the medical record as a major concern. Dr. Pettit noted that appellant 

had denied tinnitus during his April 4, 2017 medical examination, the physical examination of the 

ears was normal, and the audiogram showed mild sensorineural hearing loss with excellent speech 

discrimination scores bilaterally, and normal speech discrimination scores. He opined that 

appellant’s impairment rating was zero and hearing aids were not required. Dr. Pettit further 

indicated that he agreed with Dr. Clay’s findings regarding the degree of hearing loss and 

impairment. A copy of Dr. Pettit’s impairment calculations was provided. The August 4, 2017 

audiogram found right ear frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per second 

 

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

revealed decibels losses of 5, 10, 35, and 35, respectively. These decibels were totaled at 85 and 

were divided by 4 to obtain an average hearing loss at those cycles of 21.25 decibels. The average 

of 21.25 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, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per second revealed decibels losses of 5, 

5, 25, and 35 respectively. These decibels were totaled at 70 and were divided by 4 to obtain the 

average hearing loss at those cycles of 17.5 decibels. The average of 17.5 decibels was then 

reduced by 25 decibels (the first 25 decibels were discounted as discussed above) to 0 which was 

multiplied by the established factor of 1.5 to compute zero percent hearing loss for the left ear. 

Thus, OWCP’s medical adviser concluded that appellant does not have a permanent impairment.

On June 19, 2017 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7).

By decision dated July 17, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim as the 

medical evidence of record did not demonstrate permanent, measureable hearing impairment.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8107 of FECA sets forth the number of weeks of compensation to be paid for the 

permanent loss of use of specified members, functions and organs of the body.3 FECA, however, 

does not specify the manner by which the percentage loss of a member, function or organ shall be 

determined. To ensure consistent results and equal justice under the law, good administrative 

practice requires the use of uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The implementing 

regulations have adopted the A.M.A., Guides as the appropriate standard for evaluating schedule 

losses.4 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in accordance with the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2009).5

The method of evaluating permanent impairment due to hearing loss is set forth under 

Chapter 11, section 11.2, Hearing and Tinnitus, A.M.A., Guides at 248-51 (6th ed. 2009). Using 

the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 hertz, the losses at each frequency are added up and 

averaged.6 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.7 The remaining amount is multiplied by a factor of 1.5 to arrive at the 

percentage of monaural hearing loss.8 The binaural loss is determined by calculating the loss in 

 

3 For complete loss of hearing of one ear, an employee shall receive 52 weeks’ compensation. 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8107(c)(13). For complete loss of hearing of both ears, an employee shall receive 200 weeks’ compensation. Id.

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

5 See Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700, Exhibit 1 

(January 2010); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability 

Claims, Chapter 2.808.5a (February 2013).

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

7

Id. at 250-51.

8

Id.
4

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.9

OWCP 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.10 OWCP may follow the advice of its medical 

adviser or consultant as to whether he or she has properly utilized the A.M.A., Guides.

11

ANALYSIS

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained bilateral sensorineural hearing loss due to noise 

exposure from his federal employment. The issue is whether he has established ratable permanent 

impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, thereby warranting a schedule award. The 

Board finds that the evidence of record does not establish that appellant has ratable permanent 

impairment due to his accepted bilateral hearing loss. The April 4, 2017 audiogram results did not 

demonstrate ratable values in accordance with the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides.

OWCP properly referred appellant to Dr. Clay for an examination relative to his hearing 

loss. Dr. Clay’s April 4, 2017 examination found that appellant’s bilateral sensorineural hearing 

loss was due in part to his workplace noise exposure. On May 1, 2017 an OWCP medical adviser 

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

purposes. He applied the standardized procedures to the April 4, 2017 audiogram performed for

Dr. Clay 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 5, 10, 35, and 35, respectively. These decibels were totaled at 

85 and were divided by 4 to obtain an average hearing loss at those cycles of 21.25 decibels. The 

average of 21.25 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, 2,000, and 3,000 cycles per 

second revealed decibels losses of 5, 5, 25, and 35 respectively. These decibels were totaled at 70 

and were divided by 4 to obtain the average hearing loss at those cycles of 17.5 decibels. The 

average of 17.5 decibels was then reduced by 25 decibels (the first 25 decibels were discounted as 

discussed above) to 0 which was multiplied by the established factor of 1.5 to compute zero percent 

hearing loss for the left ear. Thus, OWCP’s medical adviser concluded that appellant does not 

have a permanent impairment.

 

9

Id.

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

Chapter 2.808.6(f) (March 2017).

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

The Board finds that OWCP’s medical adviser applied the proper standards to the 

August 4, 2017 audiogram, finding zero percent bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.12 Appellant 

has not submitted a medical report establishing a percentage of hearing loss which would refute 

the opinion of the medical adviser. Although he has an employment-related hearing loss, it is not 

significant enough to be ratable for schedule award purposes.13 Appellant has, therefore, failed to 

meet his burden of proof to establish permanent, ratable hearing loss warranting a schedule 

award.14

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 employment-related 

condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased impairment. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established ratable hearing loss, warranting a 

schedule award.

 

12 5 U.S.C. § 8107; 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

13 See E.D., Docket No. 11-174 (issued July 26, 2011).

14 See S.B., Docket No. 17-1527 (issued January 9, 2018).
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 17, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: March 20, 2018

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy 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