United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.C., Appellant

and

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 

West Paducah, KY, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-1011

Issued: March 23, 2020

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 17, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a February 22, 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 binaural hearing 

loss causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment. 

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 22, 2017 appellant, then a 62-year-old boilermaker, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he developed bilateral hearing loss due to factors of his 

federal employment. He noted that he first became aware of his hearing loss on March 30, 2015

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

and first realized its relation to his federal employment on March 15, 2016. Appellant retired from 

the employing establishment on March 31, 2017. 

In a February 27, 2017 development letter, OWCP advised appellant of the type of 

evidence needed to establish his claim and provided a questionnaire for his completion. It afforded 

him 30 days to submit the requested information. In a separate letter of even date, OWCP 

requested that the employing establishment address the accuracy of appellant’s allegations and 

describe his workplace exposure to hazardous noise. 

OWCP subsequently received a statement wherein appellant related his employment 

history. Appellant noted that he had worked as a boilermaker at various locations from 1995 to 

the present, with intermittent breaks in employment. He indicated that he worked in the 

powerhouse basement around hazardous noise and loud machinery including: changing heads and 

gaskets; flushing coolers; fixing leaks on boiler feed pumps; changing belts on primary air fans;

changing pulverizer balls; replacing links on drag chains; repairing steam leaks on steam lines and 

soot blowers; and using grinders, cut off saws, needle guns, jitterbug, shear, ironworker, 

jackhammers, and hydraulic presses in the shop area. Appellant further indicated that he had no 

previous hearing problems and noted occasional hunting as a hobby. He attributed his hearing loss 

to his federal employment on March 15, 2016 when his ears began to ring continuously and he had 

to progressively increase the volume on the television. 

The employing establishment subsequently provided appellant’s employment history for 

intermittent dates from November 21, 1987 to December 2016. Its medical records from 

September 24, 1981 to June 30, 2000 noted an initial employment examination, yearly physical 

examinations, and treatment for burns and cuts. 

In an audiometric evaluation dated April 26, 2000, appellant reported nonoccupational 

activities of hunting and shooting for 40 years, and exposure to loud music, home power tools, 

home tractor and machinery, power boats, and motorcycles over a 20-year period. In a medical 

examination record dated June 30, 2000, he indicated that he had a history of hearing loss in his 

right ear. 

The employing establishment referred appellant to Dr. Whitney R. Mauldin, an audiologist, 

for an audiological examination. In a report dated April 26, 2017, Dr. Mauldin indicated that he 

had a history of federal employment for various periods from September 1981 to December 1991 

and from June 2000 to March 2017. From December 1991 to June 2000, appellant worked in 

nonfederal employment. Dr. Mauldin opined that he did not meet the criteria to establish that his

hearing loss was causally related to exposure to noise at work. She noted that appellant’s baseline 

hearing examination was performed on December 19, 2001. Dr. Mauldin summarized the results 

of audiograms obtained from December 19, 2001 to March 31, 2017. She noted that appellant 

reported using hearing protection from April 5, 2009 to March 31, 2017 in the form of push-in 

devices, ear soft plugs, ear express pod plugs, ultra-fit plugs, and ear soft super fit plugs. 

Dr. Mauldin described his nonoccupational noise exposure, including exposure to firearms, chain 

saws, farm machinery, power tools, and noise exposure at another company for various dates from 

2009 to 2016. 
3

By decision dated May 5, 2017, OWCP denied the claim finding that the factual evidence 

of record was insufficient to establish that the alleged employment factors occurred as described. 

On November 30, 2017 appellant requested reconsideration. 

In a statement dated March 21, 2017, appellant’s supervisor noted that the employing 

establishment employees had been provided with hearing protection options since 1972. He 

indicated that as part of its safety procedures appellant had received annual training regarding 

levels of noise considered hazardous. The manager confirmed that appellant’s description of his 

job titles was accurate. He further noted as a boilermaker that appellant would have worked around 

air-operated valves, boiler feed pumps, pulverizers, air compressors, and draft fans. The manager 

indicated that the ambient noise level in any of appellant’s work environments could range from 

40 to 90 decibels (dBs), but with mandatory hearing protection the ambient noise was reduced by

28 to 33 dBs. He advised that appellant would be exposed for a maximum of six hours on a regular 

workday.

On December 7, 2017 the employing establishment appellant had been an employee from 

September 24, 1981 to November 21, 1987 at an unspecified job. Appellant worked for the 

employing establishment as a boilermaker from September 27 to October 22, 1988, November 14 

to December 10, 1988, January 20 to April 29, 1989, May 22 to June 3, 1989, July 19, 1989 to 

June 29, 1991, and from August 29 to December 14, 1991. He performed nonfederal employment

from December 14, 1991 to June 19, 2000. Appellant again worked for the employing 

establishment as a boilermaker/maintenance technician from June 19, 2000 to September 20, 2014, 

as a fossil mechanic technician from September 20, 2004 to July 14, 2014, and as a boilermaker 

from June 14, 2014 to March 31, 2017, the date he retired. The employing establishment provided 

objective sound level measurements conducted for his job title and noted that he used ear plugs 

during his federal employment. It advised that medical records demonstrated preexisting hearing 

loss, including a baseline examination dated December 19, 2001. The employing establishment 

noted that appellant had indicated that he was exposed to loud noise outside of his employment, 

including noise from farm machinery, power tools, loud music, and firearms. 

An audiogram conducted by an audiologist on December 11, 2017 revealed mild-tomoderate sensorineural hearing loss bilaterally with amplification indicated.

On January 25, 2018 OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Rudolf J. Triana, a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist, for a second opinion examination. In an accompanying statement of accepted 

facts (SOAF), it indicated that he had worked for the employing establishment for intermittent 

dates from 1995 to 2007 and that he had no history of nonfederal employment. 

In a February 19, 2018 report, Dr. Triana discussed appellant’s primary complaint of 

tinnitus that had begun two years earlier. He diagnosed binaural hearing loss. Dr. Triana advised 

that the external auditory canals were dry and he noted reduced drum motility without evidence of 

acoustic neuroma or Meniere’s disease. Audiometric testing performed for him on February 8, 

2018 at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz revealed the following losses: 

right ear 30, 25, 30, and 50 dBs; left ear 30, 25, 30, and 60 dBs. Dr. Triana indicated that there

was no audiometric evaluation noted at the beginning of federal employment, but that appellant 

had reported on intake forms that he had a long history of hearing loss secondary to work exposure, 
4

firearm use, and loud music. He opined that it was unlikely that workplace exposure was of 

sufficient intensity and duration to have caused the loss in question, noting that appellant had worn 

mandatory hearing protection and had not complained of hearing issues prior to retirement.

Dr. Triana advised that appellant had a history of 20 years of exposure to firearms, loud music, 

equipment, and race cars and had complained of hearing problems prior to his federal employment. 

He opined that the sensorineural hearing loss was not due to noise exposure encountered in 

appellant’s federal employment. Dr. Triana advised that the current audiogram showed bilateral 

symmetric sensorineural hearing loss, worse in the higher frequencies. He recommended lipo

flavonoids for tinnitus and mandatory hearing protection when operating machinery, discharging 

firearms, and listening to loud music.

By decision dated February 22, 2018, OWCP modified the May 5, 2017 decision finding 

that appellant had established that the employment factors occurred as alleged. However, the claim 

remained denied as the medical evidence of record was insufficient to establish that the hearing 

loss was causally related to workplace noise exposure. OWCP afforded the weight of the medical 

evidence to Dr. Triana’s February 19, 2018 report in which he opined that appellant’s current 

hearing loss was not due to noise exposure from federal employment. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

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,2that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty as alleged, 

and that any disability or medical condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related 

to the employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim, 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated upon a traumatic injury or an occupational disease.4

In an occupational disease claim, appellant’s burden requires submission of 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 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.5

 

2 S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 

153 (1989).

3

J.M., Docket No. 17-0284 (issued February 7, 2018); R.C., 59 ECAB 427 (2008); James E. Chadden, Sr., 40 

ECAB 312 (1988).

4 K.M., Docket No. 15-1660 (issued September 16, 2016); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

Delores C. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990).

5 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); R.H., 59 ECAB 382 (2008).
5

Causal relationship is a medical issue, and the medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.6 The opinion of the physician must be based 

on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, 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 claimant.7

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision.

OWCP accepted that appellant sustained noise exposure during the course of his federal 

employment and referred him, together with a SOAF, to Dr. Triana for a second opinion 

examination to determine whether he had sustained hearing loss causally related to his accepted 

noise exposure. The SOAF provided to Dr. Triana indicated that he had worked for the employing 

establishment for intermittent dates from 1995 to 2007 and that he had no history of nonfederal 

employment. The employing establishment, however, advised that it had employed appellant from 

September 24, 1981 to November 21, 1987 in an unspecified position. Appellant subsequently 

worked for the employing establishment as a boilermaker from September 27 to October 22, 1988, 

November 14 to December 10, 1988, January 20 to April 29, 1989, May 22 to June 3, 1989, 

July 19, 1989 to June 29, 1991, August 29 to December 14, 1991, June 19, 2000 to September 20, 

2014, and June 14, 2014 to March 31, 2017. He additionally worked for the employing 

establishment as a fossil mechanic technician from September 20, 2004 to July 14, 2014. 

Appellant worked in nonfederal employment from December 1991 to June 2000.

In a report dated February 19, 2018, Dr. Triana diagnosed bilateral sensorineural hearing 

loss unrelated to noise exposure during the course of appellant’s federal employment. He noted 

that appellant had an extensive history of noise exposure to firearms, loud music, equipment, and 

race cares. Dr. Triana determined that appellant’s workplace exposure was likely insufficient to 

have caused the loss in question as appellant had used hearing protection. He further opined that 

appellant had complained of hearing issues prior to beginning federal employment.

It is OWCP’s responsibility to provide a complete and proper frame of reference for a 

physician by preparing a SOAF.8 OWCP’s procedures dictate that when an OWCP medical 

adviser, second opinion specialist or referee physician renders a medical opinion based on a SOAF

which is incomplete or inaccurate or does not use the SOAF as the framework in forming his or 

her opinion, the probative value of the opinion is seriously diminished or negated altogether.9 

 

6 A.M., Docket No. 18-1748 (issued April 24, 2019); T.H., 59 ECAB 388 (2008).

7 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); I.J., 59 ECAB 408 (2008).

8 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 -- Medical, Requirements for Medical Reports, Chapter 3.600.3 

(October 1990); C.D., Docket No. 18-1652 (issued June 26, 2019).

9

Id.; see also N.W., Docket No. 16-1890 (issued June 5, 2017).
6

As Dr. Triana relied upon an inaccurate SOAF, his opinion is of diminished probative 

value.10 He opined that appellant’s sensorineural hearing loss was not due to noise exposure 

encountered in his federal employment, noting that he had complained of hearing problems prior 

to his federal employment. As discussed, however, Dr. Triana did not demonstrate knowledge that 

appellant’s federal employment began in 1981 or that he began working as a boilermaker in 1988. 

He failed to rely upon a complete and accurate employment history, and thus his opinion is of 

diminished probative value.11

It is well established that proceedings under FECA are not adversarial in nature and while 

the claimant has the burden of proof to establish entitlement to compensation, OWCP shares the 

responsibility in the development of the evidence.12 Once OWCP undertook development of the 

evidence by referring appellant to a second opinion physician, it had the duty to secure an 

appropriate report addressing the relevant issues.13 As Dr. Triana did not base his report on an 

accurate factual history, the case will be remanded to OWCP for further development of the 

medical evidence.

On remand OWCP should prepare an updated SOAF that includes appellant’s dates of 

employment at the employing establishment and in nonfederal employment with accompanying 

noise exposure data. It should then obtain a rationalized opinion regarding whether his hearing 

loss was causally related to factors of his federal employment. 

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that the case is not in posture for decision. 

 

10 Id.; see also Y.D., Docket No. 17-0461 (issued July 11, 2017).

11 See S.T., Docket No. 18-1144 (issued August 9, 2019) (medical opinions based on an incomplete or inaccurate 

history are of limited probative value).

12 See D.M., Docket No. 19-1181 (issued December 2, 2019).

13 S.S., Docket No. 18-0397 (issued January 15, 2019); Richard F. Williams, 55 ECAB 343 (2004).
7

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the February 22, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion of the Board.

Issued: March 23, 2020

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board