United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.E., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

WARNER ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, 

Warner Robins, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-1325

Issued: December 13, 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 May 28, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 21, 2019 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 hearing loss

for schedule award purposes. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On August 9, 2018 appellant, then a 66-year-old sheet metal mechanic, filed an 

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

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

federal employment duties including repetitively using pneumatic grinders, rivet guns, drills, 

chisels, impact guns, grit blast booths with blowers and vacuums, and sanding booths with blowers 

and vacuums. He noted that he first became aware of his condition, and its relationship to factors 

of his federal employment, on July 18, 2018. 

In a development letter dated August 22, 2018, OWCP advised appellant that the evidence 

submitted was insufficient to establish his claim. It informed him of the type of evidence needed 

to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. OWCP afforded appellant 

30 days to submit the necessary evidence. 

In a separate development letter dated November 27, 2018, OWCP notified the employing 

establishment of appellant’s occupational disease claim. It requested additional information 

regarding his exposure to noise due to factors of his federal employment. OWCP also afforded 

the employing establishment 30 days to submit the requested information. 

The employing establishment responded in a November 27, 2018 letter concurring with 

appellant’s description of his employment duties and noise exposures.

On December 6, 2018 OWCP referred appellant, along with a statement of accepted facts 

(SOAF) and medical history, for audiometric testing with Dr. Kenneth Walker, a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist serving as a second opinion physician, regarding the nature, extent, and causal 

relationship of his hearing loss. 

In a report dated January 15, 2019, Dr. Walker noted his evaluation of appellant’s hearing 

loss. Audiometric testing was performed on January 8, 2019. Testing at the frequencies of 500, 

1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hertz (Hz) revealed losses at 5, 15, 20, and 25 decibels (dBs) for the right 

ear, respectively; and 10, 15, 25, and 35 dBs for the left ear, respectively. Dr. Walker noted 

normal-to-moderate noise-induced bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with excellent speech 

discrimination. He recommended annual audiograms, ear protection, and hearing aid evaluations. 

Dr. Walker diagnosed bilateral noise effects on inner ear and bilateral tinnitus, and opined that 

these conditions were caused by the noise exposure in appellant’s workplace. 

On January 24, 2019 OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for binaural sensorineural hearing 

loss and tinnitus. It noted that the medical evidence of record established that he would benefit 

from hearing aids and advised him of the procedures for requesting authorization for hearing aids. 

OWCP further informed appellant that his case had been forwarded to an OWCP district medical 

adviser (DMA) to assess the percentage of his permanent employment-related hearing loss. 

In a report dated January 29, 2019, Dr. Stephen Maturo, a Board-certified otolaryngologist 

serving as a DMA, indicated that he had reviewed the SOAF and medical records. He noted that 

an initial 2007 audiogram revealed a mild high frequency hearing loss, and annual audiograms 

demonstrated a slow progression of this hearing loss. An audiometry report dated November 2, 

2018 showed that testing at the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz revealed losses at 

5, 15, 20, and 25 dBs for the right ear, respectively; and 10, 15, 25, and 35 dBs for the left ear, 

respectively. The dB losses for the right ear totaled 45 and were then divided by 4 to obtain the 

average hearing loss of 11.25. The losses of 10, 15, 25, and 35 dBs for the left ear totaled 85 and 

were divided by 4 to obtain an average hearing loss of 21.25. After subtracting the 25 dB fence, 
3

both the right and left ear losses were reduced to zero. When multiplied by 1.5, the resulting 

monaural hearing loss in each ear was 0 percent. Dr. Maturo therefore found a total of 0 percent 

binaural hearing loss. He indicated that the audiogram dated November 2, 2018 revealed moderate 

hearing loss from 4,000 Hz to 8,000 Hz bilaterally, and related that appellant subjectively 

complained of tinnitus. Dr. Maturo concluded that appellant had zero percent hearing loss and 

was not entitled to a schedule award for tinnitus under the American Medical Association, Guides 

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

2

On March 12, 2019 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7).

By decision dated March 21, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s schedule award claim, 

finding that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that his accepted hearing loss 

condition was severe enough to be considered ratable.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA3and its implementing regulations

4

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. FECA, however, does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage loss of a member shall be determined. The method 

used in making such determination is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of OWCP. For 

consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized the use of a single set of 

tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The sixth edition of the 

A.M.A., Guides5 has been adopted by OWCP for evaluating schedule losses and the Board has 

concurred in such adoption.

6

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

A.M.A., Guides. Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, 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 of hearing 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 

 

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

3 5 U.S.C. § 8107.

4 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

5 Supra note 2.

6 V.M., Docket No. 18-1800 (issued April 23, 2019); see J.W., Docket No. 17-1339 (issued August 21, 2018).

7 A.M.A., Guides 250.

8

Id.; C.D., Docket No. 18-0251 (issued August 1, 2018).

9

Id.
4

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

evaluating hearing loss.11

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish ratable hearing 

loss for schedule award purposes.

OWCP properly referred appellant to Dr. Walker for a second opinion examination to 

evaluate his hearing loss. In his January 15, 2019 report, he noted normal-to-moderate noiseinduced bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with excellent speech discrimination. Dr. Walker 

recommended annual audiograms, ear protection, and hearing aid evaluations. He diagnosed 

bilateral noise effects on inner ear and bilateral tinnitus, and opined that these conditions were 

caused by the noise exposure in his workplace.

In its January 24, 2019 decision, OWCP accepted the claim for binaural sensorineural 

hearing loss and tinnitus and informed appellant that his case had been forwarded to OWCP’s 

DMA to assess his percentage of permanent employment-related hearing loss.

On January 29, 2019 the DMA reviewed Dr. Walker’s report and determined that appellant 

had zero percent monaural hearing loss in each ear. He related that testing at the frequencies of 

500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz revealed losses at 5, 15, 20, and 25 dBs for the right ear, 

respectively; and 10, 15, 25, and 35 dBs for the left ear, respectively. While the DMA mistakenly 

added the decibel losses for the right ear to total 45, when the total was 65, the proper total when 

divided by 4 results in an average hearing loss of 16.25. The decibel losses for the left ear were 

totaled at 85 and divided by 4 to obtain an average hearing loss of 21.25. After subtracting the 25 

decibel fence, both the right and left ear losses were reduced to zero. When multiplied by 1.5, the 

resulting monaural hearing loss is each ear was 0 percent. The Board finds that despite the DMA’s

mathematical error when totaling the right ear dB loss, he nonetheless properly concluded that 

appellant did not have ratable permanent impairment of his hearing warranting a schedule award.

Although appellant has accepted employment-related hearing loss, it is not sufficiently severe to 

be ratable for schedule award purposes.12 

The Board has held that, in the absence of ratable hearing loss, a schedule award for tinnitus

is not allowable pursuant to the A.M.A., Guides.

13

 Accordingly, as appellant does not have ratable 

hearing loss, the Board finds that appellant is not entitled to a schedule award for tinnitus.

 

10 Id.

11 V.M., Docket No. 18-1800 (issued April 23, 2019).

12 B.E., id.; W.T., Docket No. 17-1723 (issued March 20, 2018); E.D., Docket No. 11-0174 (issued July 26, 2011).

13 Id.
5

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 met his burden of proof to establish ratable hearing 

loss for schedule award purposes.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 21, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: December 13, 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