United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.C., Appellant

and

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 

WIDOWS CREEK FOSSIL PLANT, 

Stevenson, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 18-0532

Issued: October 9, 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 10, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a July 18, 2017 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act2(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over

the merits of this case.

 

1 Under the Board’s Rules of Procedure, an appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of an 

OWCP decision. An appeal is considered filed upon receipt by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 501.3(e)-(f). One hundred and eighty days from July 18, 2017, the date of OWCP’s last decision, was 

January 14, 2018. As that fell on a Sunday, and Monday, January 15, 2018 was a federal holiday, appellant had until 

Tuesday, January 16, 2018 to file an appeal. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(2). Because using January 18, 2018, the date 

the appeal was received by the Clerk of the Appellate Boards, would result in the loss of appeal rights, the date of the 

postmark is considered the date of filing. See 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(f)(1). The date of the U.S. Postal Service postmark 

is January 10, 2018, rendering the appeal timely filed. Id.

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish binaural

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

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 8, 2017 appellant, then a 63-year-old lead shift operations supervisor, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained hearing loss and tinnitus while 

in the performance of duty. He explained that he worked in close proximity to equipment that 

produced hazardous noise. Appellant further explained that, even in the control room, he was 

exposed to very loud noise from turbines. He identified June 15, 2011 as the date he first became 

aware of his claimed condition, and September 15, 2015 as the date he first realized its relation to 

factors of his federal employment. Appellant voluntarily retired effective April 30, 2017. 

OWCP received audiogram results dated September 12, 2016 and April 6, 2017.

At the request of the employing establishment, Whitney R. Mauldin, Ph.D., an audiologist, 

reviewed appellant’s federal and private sector occupational noise exposure, his reported 

recreational exposure to firearms, as well as a series of audiograms from 1991 through 2017. In 

an April 27, 2017 report, Dr. Mauldin concluded that appellant was not exposed to levels of 

occupational noise that would be considered hazardous. Consequently, Dr. Mauldin found that 

appellant’s current hearing loss was not work related. 

After further development of the record regarding appellant’s occupational noise exposure, 

OWCP prepared a June 8, 2017 statement of accepted facts (SOAF) and referred appellant to

Dr. Joseph A. Motto, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, for a second opinion evaluation. 

In a July 12, 2017 report, Dr. Motto examined appellant and noted his exposure to noise. 

He diagnosed mild high frequency symmetric sensorineural hearing loss at 4,000, 6,000, and 8,000 

Hertz (Hz). Dr. Motto advised that the external auditory canals were dry and noted reduced drum 

motility. He noted that there was no evidence of acoustic neuroma or Meniere’s disease. 

Audiometric testing was conducted on the doctor’s behalf and testing at the frequency levels of 

500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz revealed the following: right ear 15, 15, 15, and 15 decibels

(dBs); left ear 15, 20, 15, and 15 dBs. Dr. Motto noted the audiogram was within low normal 

range with the exception of mild-high frequency loss beginning at 4,000 Hz. He further noted that 

appellant developed hearing loss which was not consistent with noise-induced hearing loss. 

Dr. Motto described the workplace exposure as of insufficient intensity and duration to have 

caused the hearing loss. He provided a graph detailing appellant’s hearing loss. Dr. Motto opined 

that the pattern of hearing loss was not typical of noise exposure and did not suggest that it was 

causally related to his occupational exposure.

In a July 18, 2017 decision, OWCP denied the claim finding that the medical evidence of 

record was insufficient to establish that appellant’s hearing loss was causally related to his 

workplace noise exposure.
3

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA3 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,4that 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.5 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. 6

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) 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.7

Causal relationship is a medical question that requires rationalized medical opinion 

evidence to resolve the issue.8 A physician’s opinion on whether there is a causal relationship 

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

complete factual and medical background.9 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).10

ANALYSIS

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

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

 

3

Id.

4

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). 

5

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

ECAB 312 (1988). 

6 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). 

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

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

9 M.V., Docket No. 18-0884 (issued December 28, 2018); Victor J. Woodhams, supranote 7.

10 Id.
4

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Motto a second opinion physician, who in a report dated 

July 12, 2017, determined that appellant developed mild high frequency symmetric sensorineural 

hearing loss at 4,000, 6,000, and 8,000 Hz. Dr. Motto noted there was no evidence of acoustic 

neuroma or Meniere’s disease. Audiometric testing was conducted on the doctor’s behalf and he 

noted the audiogram was within low normal range with the exception of mild high frequency loss 

beginning at 4,000 Hz. Dr. Motto noted that he developed hearing loss which was not consistent 

with noise-induced hearing loss. He described the workplace exposure as of insufficient intensity 

and duration to have caused the hearing loss. Dr. Motto opined that the pattern of hearing loss was 

not typical of noise exposure and did not suggest that it was causally related to his occupational 

exposure.

The Board finds that Dr. Motto had specific knowledge of appellant’s employment factors 

and opined, with rationale, that appellant’s hearing loss was not causally related to his federal 

employment but was consistent with presbycusis and therefore carries the weight of the medical 

evidence. As indicated, appellant must present medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the identified employment factors.11 There is no other medical 

evidence establishing causal relationship between appellant’s hearing loss and his federal 

employment. Consequently, appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish his claim for 

employment-related hearing loss. 

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.

 

11 Id.
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the July 18, 2017 decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: October 9, 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