United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

B.B., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, PUGET 

SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD & 

INTERMEDIATE MAINTENANCE FACILITY,

Bremerton, WA Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0625

Issued: October 2, 2019

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 January 28, 2019 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 14, 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 met his burden of proof to establish binaural sensorineural 

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

 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On May 11, 2018 appellant, then a 66-year-old retired supervisory environmental engineer, 

filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that noise exposure caused binaural 

hearing loss due to factors of his federal employment. He noted that he first became aware of his 

condition and realized its relation to his federal employment on August 1, 2011. Appellant retired 

from the employing establishment on January 2, 2012. 

In an attached checklist for filing federal occupational hearing loss claim, appellant noted 

that he did not have a prior history of ear or hearing problems, and that as a hobby he enjoys 

carpentry, but wears ear protection while engaging in that activity. In separate attached form titled 

“employment history,” he related that the source of the noise at his federal employment included 

“waterfront shipboard chippers, grinders, cranes, needle guns, sand blasters, etc.” and that he was 

exposed to the noise for eight hours each day plus overtime. Appellant noted that hearing 

protection was provided and used. 

OWCP also received audiogram results from June 4, 1980 through August 16, 2002, which 

were administered as part of the employing establishment’s hearing conservation program. It also 

received the results of an April 16, 2018 audiogram. 

After further development of the record, OWCP prepared a statement of accepted facts and 

referred appellant, along with the relevant medical evidence, to Dr. Edward Treyve, a Boardcertified otolaryngologist, for a second opinion examination.

In a December 6, 2018 report, Dr. Treyve recounted that appellant experienced bilateral 

progressive hearing loss over the past three years. He noted appellant’s hearing capacities

gradually diminished, and have disproportionally diminished on his left side. Appellant had

related that it was challenging for him to communicate with background noise and that he 

experienced tinnitus which is high-pitched and rare. His medical history included multiple ear 

infections when he was a child, and family history of old-age hearing loss. Dr. Treyve reviewed 

appellant’s past audiograms and noted that while in 1980 his hearing was normal in both ears, in 

2000 a drop was noted in the left ear and in 2002 mild high-frequency hearing loss was noted in 

the left ear. He noted that appellant’s audiometry from April 16, 2018 indicated moderately severe 

bilateral high-frequency hearing loss. 

Appellant indicated that he engages in recreational activities with significant noise 

exposure including the use of power tools such as a weed eater, leaf blower, and lawn mower for 

yard work. He additionally engages in the infrequent use of shop tools and the very infrequent use 

of chainsaws. The report noted that appellant wears ear protection for all of these activities. His 

occupational history included building homes using power tools as a carpenter while using ear 

protection from 1976 to 1980. Appellant recounted that from 1980 to 1997 he worked on a ship 

directing nuclear component testing and was surrounded by continuous noise that included 

chipping, cranes, descalers, and needle guns. He stated that he “mostly wore ear protection, but 

once in a while did not because he needed to communicate.” From 1998 until 2012 appellant was 

an environmental engineer and spent half of his time working on the waterfront surrounded by the 

constant noise of motors, pneumatic tools, and cranes.
3

Dr. Treyve’s physical examination of appellant’s ears indicated normal pinna bilaterally 

with normal ear canals and tympanic membranes. The report documented an audiometry 

performed by an audiologist and signed by Dr. Treyve which revelaed “a bilateral mild to 

moderate[-]high-frequency sensorineural loss symmetric with excellent discrimination of 100 

[present] bilaterally.” Additionally, appellant’s reflexes on his right were absent and on his 

reflexes on his left were diminished.

Dr. Treyve diagnosed late onset asymmetric bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. He 

reasoned that because appellant only experienced hearing loss during the second part of his federal 

employment when he worked with less noise than in the first part of his federal employment, the

identified federal employment factors did not cause appellant’s hearing loss. Dr. Treyve stated 

that it was more likely than not that appellant’s hearing loss was due to presbycusis (age related). 

In response to questions by OWCP, Dr. Treyve noted that, while the workplace noise in 

appellant’s federal employment may have had the capacity to cause hearing loss, he did not believe 

that it caused appellant’s hearing loss. He also noted that the hearing loss appellant sustained since 

the beginning of his exposure to his federal employment’s workplace noise was not in excess of 

typical predicted age-related hearing loss, and that no other exposures or diseases contributed to 

appellant’s hearing loss. 

By decision dated January 14, 2019, OWCP denied appellant’s claim, finding that the 

medical evidence of record did not establish that his diagnosed late onset asymmetric binaural 

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

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 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 of FECA,3that 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.4 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. 5

To establish that an injury was sustained in the performance of duty in an occupational 

disease claim, a claimant must submit: (1) a factual statement identifying employment factors 

alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or occurrence of the disease or condition; 

 

2

Id.

3

J.P., Docket No. 19-0129 (issued April26, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); Joe D. 

Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989). 

4

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

ECAB 312 (1988). 

5 R.R., Docket No. 19-0048 (issued April25, 2019); L.M., Docket No. 13-1402 (issued February 7, 2014); 

DeloresC. Ellyett, 41 ECAB 992 (1990). 
4

(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 identified employment factors.

6

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.7 A physician’s opinion on whether there is causal relationship 

between the diagnosed condition and the implicated employment factor(s) must be based on a 

complete factual and medical background.8 Additionally, the physician’s opinion must be 

expressed in terms of a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and must be supported by medical 

rationale, explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and appellant’s 

specific employment factor(s).9

ANALYSIS

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

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

In support of his claim, appellant submitted medical records containing an audiometry 

report from April 16, 2018 and a series of workplace audiograms from 1980 through 2002. The 

April 16, 2018 audiometry report was signed by an audiologist and the series audiograms that 

indicated he experienced a statistical threshold shift and was routinely exposed to noise were not 

signed by a physician. These documents are of no probative value because audiologists are not 

considered to be qualified physicians within the meaning provided by FECA.10 

The two audiograms furnished by appellant that are signed by physicians are of no 

probative value to the issue of causal relationship because they offer no opinion on whether his

hearing loss was causally related to the routine noise exposure at his federal employment. 11 

OWCP properly referred appellant to Dr. Treyve for a second opinion. Dr. Treyve 

conducted a physical examination of appellant and reviewed appellant’s medical and factual 

history including past audiograms, occupational history, and recreational history. He diagnosed 

late onset asymmetric bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and stated that, because appellant only 

experienced hearing loss during the second part of his federal employment when he worked with 

less noise than in the first part of his federal employment, Dr. Treyve did not believe that 

appellant’s accepted federal employment factors caused his hearing loss. Rather, Dr. Treyve

opined that it was more likely than not that appellant’s hearing loss was age related. 

 

6 M.S.,Docket No. 18-1554 (issued February 8, 2019); Victor J. Woodhams, 41 ECAB 345, 352 (1989).

7 E.M., Docket No. 18-1599 (issued March 7, 2019); Robert G. Morris, 48 ECAB 238 (1996). 

8 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams, supranote 6. 

9

Id.

10 See H.M., Docket No. 19-0188 (issued April26, 2019). 

11 M.S., Docket No. 19-0189 (issued May 14, 2019). 
5

The Board finds that Dr. Treyve’s opinion is based on a proper factual and medical history, 

as he reviewed current and previous audiometric and audiogram test results and related his findings 

on examination and testing in support of his opinion that appellant’s hearing loss was not due to

the noise in his federal employment.12 Dr. Treyve’s December 6, 2018 report therefore represents 

the weight of the medical evidence and establishes appellant’s hearing loss was not due to exposure 

to noise in his federal workplace.13 

As appellant has not submitted rationalized medical evidence establishing hearing loss 

related to his accepted federal employment factors, he has not met his burden of proof. 

Appellant may submit new evidence or argument with a written request for reconsideration 

to OWCP within one year of this merit decision, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not established binaural sensorineural hearing loss 

causally related to the accepted factors of his federal employment.

 

12 See T.C., Docket No. 17-0872 (issued October 5, 2017).

13 See id.
6

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 14, 2019 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed. 

Issued: October 2, 2019

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