United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, DEFENSE 

LOGISTICS AGENCY, PUGET SOUND 

NAVAL SHIPYARD, Bremerton, WA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 19-0074

Issued: May 15, 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

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 12, 2018 appellant filed a timely appeal from a September 19, 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 July 11, 2017 appellant, then a 56-year-old retired supply management training 

specialist, filed an occupational disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that he sustained binaural

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

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

his condition, and its relationship to his federal employment on May 1, 2015. On the reverse side 

of the claim form, the employing establishment noted that appellant first received medical care on 

October 4, 2016 from federal employment on November 12, 2016 and first reported his condition 

to his former supervisor on June 30, 2017.

In a federal occupational hearing loss claim form dated June 30, 2017, appellant related 

that he had a history of tinnitus. He attached a summary of his employment history.

In a development letter dated July 21, 2017, OWCP informed appellant of the deficiencies 

of his claim. It advised him of the type of factual and medical evidence needed and provided a 

questionnaire for his completion. In a separate letter of even date, OWCP requested information 

from the employing establishment relevant to appellant’s hearing loss claim, including all 

audiograms. It afforded both parties 30 days to respond. 

In a completed development questionnaire dated July 31, 2017, appellant indicated that he 

had not previously filed a claim for hearing loss and did not have hobbies involving exposure to 

loud noises. 

In a letter dated August 21, 2017, the employing establishment controverted appellant’s

claim. It indicated that he began employment on May 17, 2015, but he was employed in a 

sedentary desk position capacity. The employing establishment noted that appellant was exposed 

to years of loud noises while sandblasting during his employment at the Naval Shipyard, which 

was his place of employment prior to May 17, 2015. 

By decision dated October 20, 2017, OWCP denied appellant’s hearing loss claim finding 

that the evidence of record was insufficient to establish the factual component of his claim. 

Specifically, it noted that the record contained a conflicting factual history concerning his work 

activities on or about May 2015. 

On April 27, 2018 appellant requested reconsideration of OWCP’s October 20, 2017 

decision. He submitted additional evidence. 

In a statement dated April 17, 2018, appellant related that he was exposed to noise two to 

three hours per day from 1993 to 2016 when he was employed by both the Puget Sound Naval 

Shipyard and Defense Logistics Agency. 

On July 12, 2018 OWCP referred appellant, together with a statement of accepted facts

which summarized appellant’s exposure to hazardous noise, to Dr. Edward Treyve, a Boardcertified otolaryngologist, for a second opinion evaluation to determine whether appellant 

sustained employment-related hearing loss. 

In a report dated September 4, 2018, Dr. Treyve noted appellant’s history and complaints, 

and provided audiometric test results. The audiogram performed on Dr. Treyve’s behalf by Rachel 

Shannon, an audiologist, reflected testing at frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz 

(Hz) which revealed the following: right ear 15, 10, 5, and 10 decibels (dBs), respectively, left ear 

25, 15, 25, and 30 dBs, respectively. Dr. Treyve indicated that the audiogram revealed normal 

hearing on the right with a mild-to-severe downsloping sensorineural loss on the left. He 
3

diagnosed “unilateral sensorineural hearing loss” involving the left ear. Dr. Treyve related that 

while appellant worked in a noisy environment for several years, there was no evidence of hearing 

loss in the right ear and he had a severe high-frequency hearing loss in the left ear. Furthermore, 

he noted that occupational noise exposure was almost always bilateral and symmetric, and as such, 

he did not believe that the hearing loss in appellant’s left ear was related to occupational noise

exposure. Dr. Treyve opined that the hearing loss in the left ear was related to viral causes or 

possibly a retrocochlear lesion. 

By decision dated September 19, 2018, OWCP affirmed the October 20, 2017 decision, as 

modified. It found that the evidence presented was sufficient to satisfy that appellant sustained 

hearing loss in his left ear. However the evidence of record was insufficient to establish that 

appellant’s hearing loss was caused by noise exposure during 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 period of FECA,3and that 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 the following: (1) medical evidence establishing the 

presence or existence of the disease or condition for which compensation is claimed; (2) a factual 

statement identifying employment factors alleged to have caused or contributed to the presence or 

occurrence of the disease or condition; and (3) medical evidence establishing that the employment 

factors identified by the claimant were the proximate cause of the condition for which 

compensation is claimed or, stated differently, medical evidence establishing that the diagnosed 

condition is causally related to the employment factors identified by the claimant.6

Neither the condition becoming apparent during a period of employment, nor the belief of 

the employee that the hearing loss was causally related to noise exposure in federal employment, 

 

2

Id.

3 S.C., Docket No. 18-1242 (issued March 13, 2019); S.B., Docket No. 17-1779 (issued February 7, 2018); J.P., 59 

ECAB 178 (2007); Joe D. Cameron, 41 ECAB 153 (1989).

4 T.H., Docket No. 18-1736 (issued March 13, 2019); 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 T.E., Docket No. 18-1595 (issued March 13, 2019); 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).

6 Supra note 4.
4

is sufficient to establish causal relationship.7 The medical evidence required to establish causal 

relationship is rationalized medical opinion evidence.8 Rationalized medical opinion evidence is 

medical evidence which includes a physician’s rationalized opinion on the issue of whether there 

is causal relationship between the claimant’s diagnosed condition and the implicated employment 

factors. 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.9

ANALYSIS

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

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

Appellant has not submitted medical evidence which provides an opinion regarding the 

cause of his alleged binaural sensorineural hearing loss. However, OWCP referred appellant to

Dr. Treyye for a second opinion evaluation regarding appellant’s hearing loss claim. He concluded 

that appellant did not have sensorineural hearing loss due to his federal employment. In a report 

dated September 4, 2018, Dr. Treyve related appellant examination findings, reviewed the 

statement of accepted facts, and diagnosed unilateral sensorineural hearing loss involving the left 

ear. He noted that occupational noise exposure was almost always bilateral and symmetric, and 

opined that the hearing loss in appellant’s left ear was not related to occupational noise, but rather 

was related to viral causes or possibly a retrocochlear lesion. 

The Board finds that Dr. Treyve’s September 4, 2018 report represents the weight of the 

medical evidence and establishes that appellant’s sensorineural hearing loss was not due to 

exposure to noise in the workplace.10 Dr. Treyve’s opinion is based on a proper factual and 

medical history as he reviewed current audiometric 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 

exposure to noise in his federal employment.11

The Board thus finds that the medical evidence of record is insufficient to establish that he 

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

Appellant has not met his burden of proof.

12

 

7 C.C., Docket No. 18-1229 (issued March 8, 2019). 

8 M.B., Docket No. 17-1999 (issued November 13, 2018).

9 M.L., Docket No. 18-1605 (issued February 26, 2019).

10 R.B., Docket No. 18-0720 (issued November 13, 2018); see R.J., Docket No. 11-1644 (issued February 14, 2012);

J.L., Docket No. 07-1740 (issued December 20, 2007).

11 R.B., id.; see T.T., Docket No. 17-0471 (issued August 8, 2017).

12 J.B., Docket No. 17-0984 (issued July 11, 2018); Mary E. Marshall, 56 ECAB 420, 427 (2005).
5

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 and 20 C.F.R. 

§§ 10.605 through 10.607.

CONCLUSION

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

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

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the September 19, 2018 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: May 15, 2019

Washington, DC

Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board