United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, RESEARCH, 

DEVELOPMENT & ENGINEERING 

COMMAND, Moffett Field, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0256

Issued: May 10, 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 November 15, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 24, 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 to consider the merits of this case.

ISSUE

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

warranting a schedule award.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On April 25, 2018 appellant, then a 60-year-old engineering technician, filed an 

occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) for hearing loss. He identified April 19, 2018 as the date 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

he became aware of his condition, and April 23, 2018 as the date when he first realized it was 

related to factors of his federal employment. Appellant attributed his hearing loss to exposure to 

jet engines, hydraulic pumps, helicopter rotor systems, and power tools while in the performance 

of duty. 

OWCP received the results of audiograms administered by the employing establishment 

between May 22, 1985 and October 18, 2013. It also received April 19, 2018 audiogram results

and a position description for appellant’s position of an engineering technician. 

In response to a May 15, 2018 OWCP development letter, G.F., the Chief of the Wind 

Tunnel Operations Branch, indicated in a letter dated May 24, 2018, that the employing 

establishment agreed that appellant was exposed to high levels of noise during the course of his 

career. He explained that the work sites involved high levels of noise, including that from jet 

engines, helicopter rotor systems, wind tunnel fan drives, motor generators, hydraulic units, high 

pressure air, power tools, and other machinery. G.F. estimated appellant’s noise exposure to be, 

on average, an approximate four hours per day, two-to-three days per week. He further indicated 

that the employing establishment provides employees with ear protection, and that appellant would 

continue to be exposed to noise until his retirement on May 31, 2018. With his letter, G.F. also 

included appellant’s Notification of Personnel Action (SF-50), Personal Qualification Statement 

(SF-171), and his appointment affidavits from May 28, 1985, as well as duplicate copies of the 

May 2004 letter and its attachments from the employing establishment’s health unit.

On June 5, 2018 OWCP prepared a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), which indicated 

that appellant worked as an engine mechanic with the U.S. Navy between 1976 and 1980, a jet 

engine repairer with the Naval Air Rework Facility between 1982 and May 1985, and in his current 

position between May 1985 and May 31, 2018.

OWCP referred appellant for additional audiometric testing and a second opinion 

examination by Dr. Barry C. Baron, a Board-certified otolaryngologist. An August 23, 2018 

audiogram noted losses at the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hertz (Hz). The left ear 

losses were recorded as 5, 0, 5, and 40 decibels (dBs); the right ear losses were recorded as 10, 10, 

15, and 45 dBs. In his report, Dr. Baron diagnosed appellant with bilateral sensorineural hearing 

loss and tinnitus. He checked the box indicating his belief that these mild left ear hearing losses 

were due to noise exposure encountered within appellant’s employment. In the audiological 

evaluation section of Dr. Baron’s report, the monaural hearing impairment for the right ear was 

calculated as zero percent, and the left ear calculation was the same. As a result, he determined 

that appellant had zero percent binaural hearing impairment. 

By decision dated September 7, 2018, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for “bilateral 

noise effects on the inner ear.” It further advised him that the record established that he would 

benefit from the use of hearing aids. Lastly, OWCP indicated that appellant should file for a claim 

for a schedule award. 

On September 10, 2018 appellant submitted a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7). 

On September 18, 2018 OWCP routed the case to its district medical adviser (DMA) to 

determine whether appellant had ratable employment-related hearing impairment.
3

In a report dated September 20, 2018, Dr. Jeffrey M. Israel, a Board-certified 

otolaryngologist serving as a DMA, noted that appellant had served in the Federal Government 

between 1982 and May 2018, first as an engine mechanic and jet engine repairer before becoming 

an engineering technician. He reviewed the series of audiograms dating back to May 1985, and 

noted the progressive sensorineural hearing loss over time. Based on the findings from the second 

opinion report by Dr. Baron, Dr. Israel determined that appellant did not have ratable hearing loss 

based on the August 23, 2018 audiogram. Specifically, he determined that the monaural hearing 

loss of each ear was zero percent and resulted in binaural loss of zero percent, and thus the hearing 

loss was not ratable under the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the 

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

2

 Dr. Israel concluded his report by 

suggesting authorization for hearing aids, and that appellant undergo yearly audiograms and utilize 

noise protection for his ears.

By decision dated September 24, 2018, OWCP denied appellant’s claim for a schedule 

award. It explained that under the A.M.A., Guides, appellant’s hearing loss was not sufficiently 

severe to be considered ratable for purposes of a schedule award.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8107 of FECA3sets 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.4 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.5 Effective May 1, 2009, schedule awards are determined in accordance with the sixth 

edition of the A.M.A., Guides (2009).6

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 dB 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 

 

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

3 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

4 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.

5 20 C.F.R. § 10.404. 

6 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 2.808.5 (March 2017).

7 See Section 11.2, Hearing and Tinnitus, A.M.A., Guides 248-51 (6th ed. 2009).

8

Id. at 250.
4

percentage of monaural hearing loss.9 The binaural loss is determined by calculating the loss in 

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.10

ANALYSIS

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

loss, warranting a schedule award.

In an August 23, 2018 report, second opinion physician Dr. Baron noted losses at the 

frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz. The left ear losses were recorded as 5, 0, 5, and 

40 dBs and the right ear losses were recorded as 10, 10, 15, and 45 dBs. Dr. Baron found zero 

percent monaural hearing impairment for the right and left ears. As a result, he found zero percent 

binaural hearing impairment. 

OWCP’s DMA, Dr. Israel, on September 20, 2018, reviewed the case record, including the 

findings of Dr. Baron, and determined that appellant’s right ear hearing loss resulted in an average 

loss of 20 (80 ÷ 4) dBs, and the left ear loss averaged 12.5 (50 ÷ 4) dBs. After subtracting the 25 

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

resulting monaural loss in each ear was zero percent. Dr. Israel therefore found a total of zero 

percent binaural hearing loss.

The Board finds that there is no current medical evidence of record sufficient to establish

ratable hearing loss under OWCP’s standardized procedures for rating hearing impairment.

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

ratable for schedule award purposes.11 As the August 23, 2018 audiogram did not demonstrate 

that appellant’s hearing loss was ratable, he is not entitled to a schedule award.

Appellant may request a schedule award or increased schedule award at any time based on 

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, warranting a schedule award.

 

9

Id. at 250-51.

10 Id. at 251.

11 See B.E., Docket No. 18-1785 (issued April 1, 2019); R.S., Docket No. 18-1524 (issued February 5, 2019).
5

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 24, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 10, 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