OWCP Annual Report

to Congress

FY 2010

Submitted to Congress 2013

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Material contained in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially, without 

permission of the Federal Government. Source credit is requested but is not required. Permission is required only to 

reproduce any copyrighted material contained herein.

This material will be made available to individuals upon request.

(202)693-0031

Internet address: www.dol.gov/owcp
OWCP Annual Report

to Congress

FY 2010

Submitted to Congress 2013

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
ii
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

 Washington, D.C. 20210

THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I have enclosed the Department of Labor's annual report to Congress on

the FY 2010 operations of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

The report covers administration of the Federal Employees’ Compensation

Act as required by Section 8152 of that Act, the Black Lung Benefits Act as

required by Section 426(b) of that Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act (LHWCA) as required by Section 42 of that Act, and the

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, for

the period October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010.

Separate enclosures contain reports on annual audits of the Longshore

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Special Fund and the District of

Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act Special Fund accounts as

required by Section 44(j) of LHWCA.

This report both fulfills the requirements of the respective laws and

provides a comprehensive source of information on the administration and

operation of Federal workers' compensation programs.

Sincerely,

Gary A. Steinberg

Acting Director

Enclosures
iv
Contents

Page

Director’s Message ....................................................................................................2

Federal Employees' Compensation Act.................................................................... 4

Black Lung Benefits Act .........................................................................................13

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ..............................................22

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act ...................32

Appendix..................................................................................................................42

Office Directory .......................................................................................................66
2

DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 was once again a very productive and successful year for the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP). Nearly $4.3 billion in compensation and benefits were paid out by the four 

OWCP programs, which at the same time met nine of their ten Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) goals.

OWCP also met or exceeded 90 percent of its 104 operational plan goals during the year. This was all accomplished 

during a year in which OWCP played a central and very important role in advancing several of the Department of 

Labor (DOL) outcome goals supporting the Secretary of Labor’s vision of “good jobs for everyone.”

The Federal Employees’ Compensation (FEC) program exceeded the 2009 baselines in all four of its performance 

goals under the new Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) initiative. On July 19, 2010, 

President Obama established the new four-year POWER initiative, covering FY 2011 – FY 2014, to be jointly 

managed by OWCP and DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration. POWER, building on the 

accomplishments of the previous Safety, Health and Return-to-Work initiative that ended in FY 2009, established

more aggressive targets for workplace safety and health efforts for seven performance areas within individual 

agencies of the Federal government, based on FY 2009 baseline performance. Another new and promising effort 

was created when the President issued Executive Order 13548 on employing persons with disabilities and 

reemploying injured workers. With advice from the Office of Personnel Management and the collaboration of

DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy, strategies were implemented to establish performance goals to 

support this initiative.

The Black Lung Benefits Act was amended by the March 23, 2010 enactment of Section 1556 of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA). PPACA, which provides for automatic entitlement for 

certain survivors of deceased miners, resulted in a very large upsurge in claims received. During the year, there was 

a 62 percent increase in new Black Lung claims filed under Part C compared to FY 2009. This surge in new claims 

is expected to last into FY 2012 as all cases that are newly eligible are filed and adjudicated within the claims 

system. Due to this unexpected increase in claims, the Black Lung program fell short of meeting its GPRA goal of 

an average of 200 days to process a claim from date of receipt to the issuance of a Proposed Decision and Order. 

The additional workload resulted in a small increase in the average to 210 days by the end of the fiscal year. The 

program did, however, exceed its previous GPRA goal as 81 percent of its claims were resolved with no pending 

request for further action within one year.

The Defense Base Act (DBA) workload continued to be successfully managed by the Longshore program. The level 

of DBA claims remained high during the year as total new cases received reached nearly 15,000, with a large 

majority of these occurring in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. Several improvements to the DBA program 

were completed, such as strengthening compliance assistance, including tailoring the assistance to better address 

foreign worker needs; enhancing DBA management systems to allow for the automation of insurance and other 

important policy and administration related information; increased emphasis on speeding dispute resolutions; and 

developing and publishing agency result measures, report card rankings and other performance-related metrics to 

assist in improving contractor/insurance carrier performance in their management of cases. Importantly, the 

Longshore program met both of its new GPRA goals related to the DBA. For employer and carrier notice of injury

timeliness, 75 percent of the reports were filed within 30 days against a target of 63 percent. Also, 56 percent of 

initial payments on DBA cases were made in 30 days compared to the target of 50 percent.

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) program completed its tenth 

year of operation by again achieving all three of its GPRA goals. The average number of days for an initial
3

determination was reduced to 97 days under Part B, 19 percent below the goal of 120 days, and to 125 days for Part 

E, nearly 22 percent below the goal of 160 days. In addition, final decisions by the EEOICPA program’s Final 

Adjudication Branch were completed within program standards 97 percent of the time, versus a goal of 89 percent. 

All of this was accomplished during a year in which over $1 billion in compensation and medical benefits were paid

under the EEOICPA, impacting over 5,000 employees or their survivors under Part B and nearly 4,500 employees or 

their survivors under Part E. During FY 2010, the EEOICPA program also accomplished a great deal in the areas of 

customer service and outreach. A customer survey administered by the program showed that 97 percent of 

individuals awarded benefits and 61 percent that were denied were satisfied with the service they received during the 

claims process and would recommend the program. Expanded outreach activities were conducted throughout the 

year by the EEOICPA program staff through the use of traveling Resource Centers, town hall and other meetings 

with stakeholders as 21new Special Exposure Cohort classes of employees were added. Also, a public website was 

launched in close coordination with the Department of Energy (DOE) that expanded the availability of site exposure 

matrices data that includes detailed information about toxic exposures by building and job categories within DOE 

complexes.

The determined effort on the part of the entire OWCP staff is responsible for meeting the challenges that were faced 

during this past year while at the same time meeting or exceeding nearly all of the high performance goals that were 

set. Their dedication and expertise in carrying out the most important OWCP mission of all, providing the highest

quality service and assistance as possible to injured workers and their families, has made all of these 

accomplishments possible.

 Gary A. Steinberg

 Acting Director, Office of Workers’

 Compensation Programs
4

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES'

COMPENSATION ACT

Introduction

In 1916, President Wilson signed the first comprehensive law protecting Federal workers from the effects of work 

injuries. Amended several times, the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) now provides workers’ 

compensation coverage to approximately 2.8 million Federal workers. The FECA also provides coverage to Peace 

Corps and VISTA volunteers, Federal petit and grand jurors, volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol, Reserve 

Officer Training Corps Cadets, Job Corps, Youth Conservation Corps enrollees, and non-Federal law enforcement 

officers when injured under certain circumstances involving crimes against the United States.

For over 90 years, the Federal Employees’ Compensation (FEC) program has continuously evolved to meet its 

commitment to high quality service to employees and Federal agencies, while minimizing the human, social and 

financial costs of work-related injuries.

Benefits and Services

The primary goal of the FEC program is to assist Federal employees who have sustained work-related injuries or 

disease by providing financial and medical benefits as well as help in returning to work. FECA benefits include 

payment for all reasonable and necessary medical treatment for work-related injury or disease. In timely-filed 

traumatic injury claims, the FECA requires the employer to continue the injured worker's regular pay during the first 

45 calendar days of disability. If the disability continues after 45 calendar days, or in cases of occupational disease, 

the FEC program will make payments to replace lost income. Compensation for wage loss is paid at two-thirds of 

the employee's salary if there are no dependents, or three-fourths if there is at least one dependent. The FECA 

provides a monetary award to injured workers for permanent impairment of limbs and other parts of the body and 

provides benefits to survivors in the event of work-related death. Training and job placement assistance is available 

to help injured workers return to gainful employment.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the FEC program provided over 251,000 workers and survivors over $2.8 billion in 

benefits for work-related injuries, illnesses, or deaths. Of these benefit payments, over $1.8 billion were for wageloss compensation, $913 million for medical and rehabilitation services, and $138 million for death benefit payments 

to surviving dependents.

The FECA is the exclusive remedy by which Federal employees may obtain disability, medical, and/or survivor 

benefits from the Federal government for workplace injuries. Decisions for or against the payment of benefits may 

be appealed to the Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB), an independent body in the Department of 

Labor (DOL). Program activities are carried out in the 12 program district offices around the country.

Funding

Benefits are paid from the Employees' Compensation Fund. Agencies are billed each August for benefits paid for 

their employees from the Fund, and most agencies, other than the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and non-appropriated 

fund agencies, include those chargeback costs in their next annual appropriation request to Congress. Remittances to 
5

the Fund are not made until the first month of the subsequent fiscal year (or later when an agency’s full-year 

appropriation is enacted after the subsequent fiscal year begins). The annual DOL appropriation makes up any 

difference between prior year remittances and current year need, which is affected by Federal wage increases and 

inflation in medical costs.

Expenses for a small number of cases are not charged back to employing agencies, but also are covered by the DOL 

appropriation. For FY 2010, these non-chargeback expenses were approximately $86.2 million. Non-chargeable 

costs are attributable to injuries that occurred before December 1, 1960, when the chargeback system was enacted, to 

employees of agencies that are no longer in existence, or to injuries which have FECA coverage under various 

“Fringe Acts” such as the Contract Marine Observers Act, Law Enforcement Officers Act, and the War Hazards

Compensation Act (WHCA). War Hazards payouts doubled in FY 2010 as the increased involvement of contractor 

staff in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a growing volume of claims under the Defense Base Act, leading to 

reimbursement requests under the WHCA for injuries and deaths caused by hostile action.

For FY 2010, administrative expenditures for the FEC program totaled $170.6 million. Of this amount, $157.5

million, approximately 5.2 percent of total program costs, were direct appropriations to the DOL’s Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), including $98.1 million in salaries and expenses and $59.4 million in 

“fair share” expenditures out of the FECA Special Benefits account. These latter funds are specifically earmarked 

for OWCP capital investments for the development and operation of automated data management and operations 

support systems, periodic roll case management, and benefit oversight. Another $13.0 million are separately 

appropriated to the Department for legal, investigative, and other support from the ECAB, Office of the Solicitor, the 

Office of the Inspector General, and the U.S. Treasury.

Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment Initiative

The Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative was initially established in 2004 and ran through 

FY 2009. This initiative set goals for reducing injury and lost time rates, increasing the timely filing of injury and 

illness reports, and reducing lost production days attributable to workplace injuries.

When SHARE concluded in FY 2009, the Federal government as a whole (less the U.S. Postal Service) had 

successfully achieved all four SHARE goals. Nine departments and independent agencies met each of the 

performance measures in FY 2009. Although there are no additional SHARE targets to meet in FY 2010, OWCP 

continued to track and post data on agency progress in these areas.

In July 2010, President Barack Obama announced a new four-year initiative (FY 2011-FY 2014) – Protecting Our 

Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER). The POWER initiative calls on Federal agencies to establish 

ambitious but reachable goals aimed at minimizing the impact of workplace injuries. POWER builds on the 

accomplishments and outreach of SHARE and tasks agencies with the additional objectives of analyzing safety data, 

timely filing wage-loss claims, and returning seriously injured employees to the Federal workplace.

The seven POWER goals are:

• Reducing total injury and illness case rates.

• Reducing lost time injury and illness case rates.

• Analyzing lost time injury and illness data.

• Increasing the timely filing of workers’ compensation notices of injury.
6

• Increasing the timely filing of wage-loss claims.

• Reducing lost production day rates.

• Increasing the percentage of employees who return to work following serious injury or illness.

OWCP and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) jointly manage this initiative under the 

leadership of the Secretary of Labor. OWCP and OSHA worked in partnership to establish individual agency goals 

using baseline performance established in FY 2009. In September 2010, Secretary Solis set minimum thresholds for 

Federal agencies to reach in each of the seven goals over the four years of the initiative. OWCP and OSHA 

convened a meeting of safety and workers’ compensation professionals and other stakeholders across the government 

to introduce the POWER initiative and further explain the goals set forth by Secretary Solis in October 2010.

In July 2010, President Obama also issued Executive Order 13548 on increasing the Federal employment of 

individuals with disabilities. The reemployment of injured workers in the Federal government is cited in this 

document and the Secretary of Labor is tasked with proposing specific outcome measures and targets by which each 

agency’s progress is assessed. The goals of the POWER initiative address this directive. Major implementing 

strategies include establishing performance targets and providing support to Federal agencies to improve 

reemployment and retention of injured workers. OWCP is collaborating with the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management and DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy to pursue innovative reemployment strategies and 

craft and advance policies, procedures, and structures that foster improved return to work.

Government Performance Results Act

Strategically, OWCP’s administration of FECA supports POWER and Executive Order 13548 by facilitating the 

reemployment of workers recovering from workplace injuries or illnesses and the accommodation and placement of 

those permanently disabled. Return to work is most successful through early identification of work injury or illness, 

prompt development of case information, and efficient provision of assistance services that will support recovery and 

return to work. Besides early intervention, the Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC) provides 

assistance to Federal employing agencies to elevate their participation in reemploying injured workers; makes greater 

use of technology to improve communications and data and information exchanges with employers and claimants; 

and, through regular monitoring of longer-term disability cases, identifies cases whose medical conditions improve 

and those individuals who could benefit from vocational rehabilitation and job placement services.

Two key indicators are used by the FEC program to measure return to work success: disability duration, measured 

as lost production days (LPD), and the percentage share of workers successfully returned to employment following

serious injury or illness. The government-wide (less USPS) LPD was reduced in FY 2010 to 34.8 days from the FY 

2009 result of 35.8 days. Success has been due to FECA’s early intervention strategies in assisting injured workers 

to return to work, and employing agencies’ continuing dedication to reemploying their workers, emphasized as 

government-wide goals under previous Presidential initiatives, Federal Worker 2000 and SHARE, and continuing in 

FY 2011 as a key measure under POWER. Under POWER, individual Executive Branch agencies are to reduce 

LPD rates (per 100 employees) by one percent per year through FY 2014 or maintain a rate of 15 days or less. 

Return-to-work rates are also covered in a new POWER goal to increase the overall share of cases that are returned 

to work by the 14 largest Executive Branch agencies to 92 percent as measured within two years of the cases’ start of 

management by the FEC program.
7

iFECS

DFEC continues to build on its sophisticated IT claims processing support system: the integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). In September 2010, DFEC implemented the second phase of automated 

support for its Continuation of Pay (COP) nurse initiative, which seeks to identify cases where very early return-towork intervention may be needed. The new functionality enabled DFEC to assign nurses during the COP period to 

cases where the injured worker has been out of work for only seven days, as opposed to the prior 15 day window. 

The new functionality allowed the COP nurses to view documents in iFECS and enter necessary case-related 

information into a secure application created especially for the COP nurses. This eliminated the need for the nurse to 

send or fax information to DOL; now they simply use the secure application. Once information has been submitted 

by the COP nurse, the claims examiner (CE) can assess and react to the data gathered more quickly than before. 

Several on-line query reports were also enhanced to display COP nurse information so the CEs can easily identify 

cases in which the injured worker remains out of work.

New functionality in iFECS also was created with regard to the electronic CA-3 form, which the employing agencies 

can use to report a return to work. With the COP Phase 2 enhancements, submission of a CA-3 prior to assignment 

of a COP nurse will automatically stop a case from becoming eligible for assignment; likewise, the submission of a 

CA-3 reporting a return to work will automatically close a COP nurse case once assigned, thereby saving scarce 

resources where intervention is not required. In conjunction with these enhancements, the Agency Query System 

also was updated to include fields to display the information pertaining to the COP nurse assignment, including 

assignment date and closure information.

Also in early FY 2010, DFEC implemented enhancements to the wage-loss claims processing component to simplify 

and speed the processing of CA-7 compensation claims. The project encompassed enhancements of multiple 

applications within iFECS to:

• Provide Compensation Management users with a popup warning message when he/she works on a payment for a 

claimant who has an uncollected debt.

• Enhance the Certify Payment process in the Compensation application to correctly handle the Accounts 

Receivable deduction on a payment; and

• Enhance the Compensation data extract report provided to employment agencies.

In FY 2010 DFEC completed gathering the business requirements, initiated the design phases, and began 

development of all portions of its major modernization initiative which consists of three distinct areas of 

functionality: an Integrated Voice Response (IVR) system; a web-based forms processing system (E-COMP); and a 

consolidation of district office scanning and data entry.

IVR Improvements and VOIP Phone System. The new system will automate the process of providing self service 

data to every caller electronically. Through this significant enhancement of claimants’ access to data about their 

cases via telephone, the CA-110 (DFEC call record form) will be generated upon the completion of all calls within 

the system. This will permit the program to maintain much better control of incoming requests for information, and 

thereby assure more prompt and comprehensive responsiveness to customers and stakeholders. Also, DFEC will

provide an “800,” toll-free number for claimants to obtain an expanded menu of self service information. The 

system will provide monitoring and reporting capabilities for tracking workforce performance and supporting 

workload projections. The system will employ a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone system that will 

leverage the enterprise system with the Wage and Hour Division of DOL, and as a result will reduce toll calls, 

relieving this cost burden from its customers and stakeholders. DFEC’s IVR system will also provide DFEC staff 

with the telephonic tools needed to make telework possible for the majority of its workforce. 
8

Web Portal Forms Processing and Document Submission (E-COMP). With E-COMP, DFEC is designing a 

web-based portal for the entire Federal government, which will supplement the EDI-based system currently available 

to only a few employing agencies. E-COMP will enable all enrolled Federal employers and claimants to “e-file” 

DFEC forms and claims information at minimal costs to the agencies. E-COMP will allow users and approvers to 

select, initiate, complete, approve and submit forms online through an interactive internet environment. E-COMP 

will also provide claimants, employers, and medical providers the ability to electronically upload and submit 

documents to DFEC through its secure web portal. This will provide claimants with the ability to instantaneously 

communicate and submit documents to DFEC claims staff instead of mailing documents. DFEC will save on 

processing fees that are currently associated with scanning mail into the case file system, and claimants will save on 

postage fees, while both entities will enjoy a much more expeditious exchange of information while maintaining the 

security of personal information.

Centralization of Case-Create/Imaging (3CI). On average, over 11,000 new cases are created for DFEC 

claimants every month, and all documents submitted with these claim forms are imaged into iFECS. DFEC has 

identified a potential for significant cost savings through the centralization of these case-create functions, which are 

currently carried out in each of the 12 DFEC district offices. Through the 3CI enhancement, DFEC seeks to reduce 

administrative costs for these functions while improving productivity, accuracy and consistency of output. Analysis 

has shown that consolidation will not only lower costs but also improve DFEC customer services and maximize 

controls for closer supervision of the case creation operations.

Case Adjudication and Management

Approximately 128,000 new injury and illness claims were filed under FECA in FY 2010. Eighty-seven percent 

were for traumatic injuries, such as those caused by slips and falls. The rest were for medical conditions arising out 

of long-term exposure, repeated stress or strain, or other continuing conditions of the work environment. The 

program has established varying standards for the prompt adjudication of these claims, depending on the relative 

complexity of the case, and has met those standards in a high percentage of cases. For traumatic injury claims, 97.6 

percent were adjudicated within 45 days of the day OWCP received notice of the injury. In FY 2010, the FEC 

program also achieved a high rate of timeliness in deciding non-traumatic injury claims despite the complexities 

involved. For “basic” occupational disease cases with an uncomplicated fact pattern, 94.7 percent were adjudicated 

within 90 days. Of the more complex non-traumatic cases, 88.2 percent were adjudicated within 180 days.

The FEC program has reduced time loss in new injury cases by approximately 20 percent under its Quality Case 

Management (QCM) program since FY 1996. Under QCM every injury case with a wage-loss claim filed and no 

return-to-work date is reviewed for assignment to an early intervention nurse contracted by the FEC program. As 

soon after the injury as practicable, the nurse meets with the injured worker and serves as the human face of OWCP. 

Coordinating medical care and return-to-work issues, the nurse not only works with the injured employee but also 

the attending physician and the employing agency. If it seems that the injured worker will not return to work soon, 

the nurse coordinates the transfer of the case for vocational rehabilitation services and/or more aggressive medical 

intervention.

In FY 2010, 7,401 injured Federal employees returned to work as a result of early nurse intervention. Additionally, 

vocational rehabilitation counselors arranged training, when necessary, and successfully placed 134 injured workers 

into non-Federal employment, plus another 334 with previous or new Federal employers. The average length of 

disability in QCM cases (lost production days within the first year from the date FECA wage-loss began) rose from 

142 days in FY 2009 to 156 days in FY 2010. This rise was due to an increase in USPS cases in QCM and the 

Postal Service’s reduced capacity to offer or maintain return-to-work opportunities.

The FEC program continued to dedicate resources to the thorough review of long-term disability cases. As part of 

that review, Periodic Roll Management (PRM) staff arranges second opinion medical examinations to reassess 

changes in medical condition and fitness for work and recommends referral to vocational rehabilitation and
9

placement assistance with a goal of reemploying injured workers. Of the cases that were screened in FY 2010, the 

disability in 1,252 cases had either resolved or lessened to the point that return to work was possible. Adjustment or 

termination of benefits resulting from the changes in these cases produced $14.2 million in first year compensation 

benefit savings.

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued to achieve improvements in operating efficiencies. During FY 2010, 

DFEC avoided $89 million in additional costs due to further improvements in the editing of bills, which in turn reduced 

costs charged back to agencies without increasing costs to claimants.

Timely and accurate medical bill processing is a critical element in administration of the FECA. In FY 2010, the bill 

processing system was enhanced to include Place of Service, which ensures that the billed services were being 

rendered at the appropriate place of service (and setting) and that the cost values were being accurately calculated.

In FY 2010, the medical bill processing vendor processed 5.2 million bills and handled 782,506 telephone calls, meeting 

FECA communication goals. Authorizations for treatment were processed in an average of 2 work days and 98.7

percent of bills were processed in 28 days. Enrollment of 17,652 new providers brought the total of enrolled providers 

to 212,635.

Hearings and Review

Individuals who disagree with an Office formal decision on a claim may exercise their appeal rights by requesting an 

oral hearing or a review of the written record from the Branch of Hearings and Review. In FY 2010, the Branch 

received a total of 6,501 incoming requests for reviews of the written record and oral hearings and issued a total of 

6,741 decisions.

In FY 2010, customer service and turnaround times improved in all of the measured areas. The period of time 

between receipt of an appealed case file and the issuance of a remand or reversal before a hearing decreased 

significantly, from an average of 64 days in FY 2009 to 48 days in FY 2010. For those case files where a hearing 

was held, the time period for issuance of a decision decreased considerably, from an average of 190 days in FY 2009 

to 166 days in FY 2010. For appeals initiated from a review of the written record, the time period for issuance of a 

decision decreased from an average of 90 days in FY 2009 to 81 days in FY 2010.

In the interest of improving appeal processing times and efficiency, the Branch continued to handle hearing requests 

originating in geographical areas less traveled via telephone hearings; 1,044 telephone hearings were conducted in 

FY 2010 compared to 638 in FY 2009. In FY 2010, the Branch also continued to conduct proceedings via 

videoconferencing, increasing productivity associated with hearings.

Regulatory and Legislative Reform

The FECA regulations were last substantially revised in 1999 and were in need of updating. A Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2010, and the comment period closed on October 

12, 2010. The comments received are under review, and publication of the new regulations is expected in 2011.

The proposed rule updates the organizational description to reflect the Department of Labor reorganization that 

eliminated the Employment Standards Administration and transformed OWCP into a stand-alone organization 

reporting directly to the Office of the Secretary. Certain parts of the regulations needed revision to reflect statutory 

and technological changes and to promote fairness and greater efficiency in the claims process. Even though many 

FECA regulations did not require updating, the entire regulation will be republished for ease of use by our customers 
10

and stakeholders. The proposed rule adds the skin as an organ for which a schedule award (a FECA benefit for 

loss/loss of use of specified organs) is available. This schedule benefit will be available for any FECA covered skin 

injury incurred on or after September 11, 2001, that results in permanent impairment, thus allowing awards for 

employees who sustained permanent impairment such as severe burns in the September 11 attacks. This schedule 

award provision was an outgrowth of OWCP’s inter-agency discussions with the Office of Personnel Management 

and the Departments of Defense and State concerning benefits for Federal employees deployed to a Zone of Armed 

Conflict (ZOAC). 

A new proposed rule gives OWCP explicit authority to contract with specific providers to provide services and 

appliances to improve service and contain costs. OWCP used existing legislative authority to create a new proposed 

special schedule to provide more equitable benefits for non-citizen non-resident employees of the United States. 

Other proposed updates included clarifications on recurrence of disability, loss of wage earning capacity and 

representative fee approvals. 

As proposed in the President’s Budget, DFEC also continues to pursue changes to the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act that would strengthen the program by enhancing incentives for injured employees to return to 

work; addressing retirement equity issues; improving administration; and updating and improving benefit payments

in certain circumstances. Specifically, the reform proposal includes the following:

• Convert compensation for new injuries or new claims for disability to a lower benefit at the Social Security 

retirement age.

• Move the 3-day waiting period during which an injured worker is not entitled to compensation to the point 

immediately after an injury.

• Change the way that schedule awards are paid to allow uniform lump sum payments to Federal employees 

eligible for such awards, and make such payments earlier.

• Eliminate augmented compensation for dependents but raise the basic benefit level for all claimants.

• Allow OWCP to recover the costs paid by responsible third parties to FECA beneficiaries during the 

continuation of pay period. 

• Increase benefit levels for funeral expenses from $1,000 to $6,000. 

• Increase benefit levels for disfigurement resulting from work injury.

• Identify unreported work earnings and receipt of Federal Employees Retirement System retirement benefits 

through regular database matching with the Social Security Administration. 

• Authorize the continuation of pay for a period not to exceed 135 days for an employee who has filed a claim for 

a period of wage loss due to traumatic or occupational injury in the performance of duty in a designated ZOAC.

Services to Claimants and Beneficiaries

Quality customer service and customer satisfaction are key components of DFEC’s mission and “Pledge to Our 

Customers.” During FY 2010, over 1.1 million calls were received by the DFEC district offices, the majority of 

which were handled by Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) in the 12 district office call centers. Since 2003, 

average caller wait times have been reduced by nearly two-thirds; turnaround time to caller inquiries has been 

reduced by more than 70 percent; and response effectiveness has improved by nearly 40 percent. During FY 2010, 

calls were connected in an average of 1.2 minutes, which is well below the goal of three minutes.
11

To help ensure quality and to identify areas where additional CSR training is needed, silent monitoring of calls to the 

district office phone banks continued during the fiscal year. Communications Specialists on DFEC’s staff listen to 

both sides of a conversation and, using a standardized Quality Monitoring scorecard, document the CSRs’ 

performance. The results of quality silent monitoring coupled with local telephone survey results show that 98.9 

percent of callers received courteous service in FY 2010. The use of clear and understandable language was 

reported in 98.9 percent of calls, and 97.7 percent of calls met knowledge and accuracy standards. The goal of 95 

percent was exceeded in each of these quality categories.

During FY 2010, 81 percent of calls to the district offices were responded to on the same day they were received, 

exceeding the goal by eight percent. The average response time for all calls in FY 2010 was less than one day (0.50 

days on average, with calls answered the same day counted as zero), which represents significant customer service 

improvement. Ninety-eight percent of all calls were responded to in two days or less.

Across the 12 district offices, more than 68,000 written responses to routine inquiries were provided and 94 percent 

were sent within 30 days. In addition, over 5,000 written priority inquiries were received and 96 percent of them 

were answered within 14 days. The office exceeded its goal of 90 percent in timely responding to written 

correspondence. Over 6,000 pieces of written correspondence were sampled in FY 2010. 100 percent of them met

the standards for courtesy, 99 percent of them were written in clear and understandable language, and 97 percent met 

knowledge and accuracy standards. The goal of 95 percent was exceeded in all three of these quality categories.

As noted above, the Branch of Hearing and Review has also dramatically improved the timeliness of its delivery of

appeal services, a key element of effective service to claimants who have concerns about initial decisions reached by 

the DFEC district office.
12

1 OWCP expenditures; excludes DOL support costs, but includes “fair share” capital expenditures of $52.1 million in 

FY 2009 and $59.4 million in FY 2010, respectively.

2 Compensation, medical, and survivor benefits. 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT

FY 2009 FY 2010

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 883 865

Administrative Expenditures 1 $142.2 M $157.5 M

Cases Created 129,690 127,526

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 18,808 19,861

Total Compensation and Benefits (Actual Obligations) 2 $2,732.6 M $2,857.8 M

Number of Medical Bills Processed 4,926,575 5,176,571
13

BLACK LUNG

BENEFITS ACT

Introduction

The Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation (DCMWC) completed its thirty-seventh year administering Part 

C of the Black Lung program in 2010. The initial Black Lung benefits program was enacted as part of the Coal 

Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (the Act). This law created a system to compensate victims of dust exposure in

coal mines with public funds initially administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA).

The number of claims filed in the early 1970’s greatly exceeded expectations. The Act was amended by the Black 

Lung Benefits Act of 1972 (BLBA) which simplified interim eligibility criteria for all claims filed with SSA, and 

transferred processing of new claims to the Department of Labor (DOL) in 1973. The Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP) assumed responsibility for processing and paying new claims on July 1, 1973. 

Further amendments in the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-239) mandated that all pending 

and denied claims be reopened and reviewed using interim medical criteria. The Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act 

of 1977 (Public Law 95-227) created the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (Trust Fund), financed by an excise tax 

on coal mined and sold in the United States. The law authorized the Trust Fund to pay benefits in cases where no 

responsible mine operator could be identified and transferred liability for claims filed with DOL based on pre-1970 

employment to the Trust Fund. It also permitted miners approved under Part B to apply for medical benefits 

available under Part C. These amendments made the Federal program permanent but state benefits continued to 

offset Federal benefits where they were available.

The 1981 Amendments to the Act tightened eligibility standards, eliminated certain burden of proof presumptions, 

and temporarily increased the excise tax on coal to address the problem of a mounting insolvency of the Trust Fund, 

which was indebted to the U.S. Treasury by over $1.5 billion at that time.

In 1997, the responsibility for managing active SSA (Part B) Black Lung claims was transferred to DOL by a 

Memorandum of Understanding between SSA and DOL. This change improved customer service to all Black Lung 

beneficiaries and was made permanent in 2002 when the Black Lung Consolidation of Administrative

Responsibilities Act placed the administration of both programs with DOL.

The Act was amended by several provisions included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

which was signed into law in March 2010. These amendments restored two provisions of the Act that had been 

eliminated by the 1981 Amendments. First, they reinstated the provision that dependent survivors of miners who 

were receiving benefits at the time of their death did not need to establish that the miner’s death was due to 

pneumoconiosis, but were automatically entitled to benefits. Second, they restored the rebuttable presumption that a 

miner who had worked at least 15 years in mining and who has a totally disabling lung condition is presumed to have 

pneumoconiosis, or that a deceased miner with 15 years’ experience and a disabling lung condition at the time of his 

death is presumed to have died as a result of pneumoconiosis. The amendments apply to claims filed after January 1, 

2005, and which were active on or after March 23, 2010.
14

Benefits and Services

The Black Lung Part C program provides two types of benefits: monthly wage replacement and medical services. 

The program pays a standard monthly benefit (income replacement) to miners who are determined to be totally 

disabled from black lung disease and to certain eligible survivors of deceased miners. The monthly rate of benefits is

adjusted upward to provide additional compensation for up to three eligible dependents. In FY 2010, monthly and 

retroactive benefit payments totaled $207.8 million.

The Part C program also provides both diagnostic and medical treatment services for totally disabling 

pneumoconiosis. Diagnostic testing is provided for all miner-claimants to determine the presence or absence of

black lung disease and the degree of associated disability. These tests include a chest x-ray, pulmonary function 

study, arterial blood gas study, and a physical examination. Medical coverage for treatment of black lung disease 

and directly related conditions is provided for miner-beneficiaries. This coverage includes prescription drugs, office 

visits, and hospitalizations. Also provided, with prior approval, are durable medical equipment (primarily home 

oxygen), outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation therapy, and home nursing visits.

Medical expenditures under the Black Lung Part C program during FY 2010 were $30.6 million. This includes 

payments of $4.4 million for diagnostic services, $24.7 million for medical treatment, and $1.5 million in 

reimbursements to the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds for the cost of treating Black 

Lung beneficiaries. Approximately 216,000 bills were processed during the year.

Total Black Lung Part C program expenditures for all benefits in FY 2010 were $238.4 million, a decrease of $16.6

million from FY 2009. In FY 2010, benefits were provided from the Trust Fund to approximately 25,000 

beneficiaries each month.

In addition to Trust Fund expenditures, self-insured mine operators and insurance companies paid more than $31

million to over 4,300 miners and survivors. An estimated $8.2 million was also paid in medical treatment benefits, 

for a total cost to the industry of $39.2 million during FY 2010.

State workers' compensation laws require coal mine operators to obtain insurance or qualify as a self-insured 

employer to cover employee benefit liabilities incurred due to occupational diseases that are covered by state law. If 

state workers' compensation is paid for pneumoconiosis, any Federal black lung benefit received for that disease is 

offset or reduced by the amount of the state benefit on a dollar-for-dollar basis. As of September 30, 2010, there 

were 1,059 Federal black lung claims being offset due to concurrent state benefits. An additional 91 were being 

offset due to other Federal benefits, and 15 due to earnings offsets.

As an additional benefit to claimants, the law provides for payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs incurred in 

connection with approved benefit claims. The fees must be approved by adjudication officers. During the past year 

DCMWC processed 77 fee petitions and paid approximately $0.5 million in attorneys’ fees from the Trust Fund.

In FY 2010, 970 claims were forwarded for formal hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) 

and 378 claims were forwarded on appeal to the Benefits Review Board (BRB). At the end of FY 2010, the OALJ 

had 1,697 claims pending while 413 were pending before the BRB.

In the Black Lung Part B program, nearly 26,000 active beneficiaries (with almost 2,300 dependents) were receiving 

nearly $17 million in monthly cash benefits as of September 30, 2010. Part B benefits in FY 2010 totaled nearly

$214 million. DCMWC completed more than 4,400 maintenance actions on Part B claims during the year, on 

average less than one week from notification.
15

Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

The Trust Fund, established in 1977 to shift the responsibility for the payment of black lung claims from the Federal 

government to the coal industry, is administered jointly by the Secretaries of Labor, the Treasury, and Health and 

Human Services. Claims that were approved by SSA under Part B of the BLBA are not paid by the Trust Fund, but 

rather from the general revenues of the Federal government. Because the Trust Fund was established at the same 

time the Reform Act liberalized eligibility for benefits, and because retroactive benefits far exceeded the collection 

of excise taxes (which were not applicable retroactively), the Fund soon began to require advances from the 

Treasury.

These advances were made in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s when interest rates were high. Consequently, the 

Trust Fund continued to require advances for the purpose of debt servicing, even though excise tax receipts and 

benefits eventually stabilized. Despite a moratorium on interest from 1986 through 1990, and several extensions of 

the excise tax rates set in 1981, by the end of FY 2008 the Trust Fund was over $10 billion in debt to the Treasury. 

The Congress addressed this debt as part of Public Law 110-343, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act enacted 

in FY 2009. The debt was restructured by a one-time allocation from the Treasury and the issuance of zero-coupon 

Treasury bonds at current interest rates.

Trust Fund revenues consist of monies collected from the industry in the form of an excise tax on mined coal that is 

sold or used by producers; funds collected from responsible mine operators (RMOs) for monies they owe the Trust 

Fund; payments of various fines, penalties, and interest; refunds collected from claimants and beneficiaries for 

overpayments; and repayable advances obtained from Treasury's general fund when Trust Fund expenses exceed 

revenues. Excise taxes, the main source of revenue, are collected by the Internal Revenue Service and transferred to 

the Trust Fund. In FY 2010, the Trust Fund received a total of $594.8 million in tax revenues. An additional $10.1 

million was collected from RMOs in interim benefits, fines, penalties, and interest. Total receipts of the Trust Fund

in FY 2010 were nearly $665 million, including $60 million in repayable advances from the Department of the 

Treasury.

Total Trust Fund disbursements during FY 2010 were almost $662 million. These expenditures included $238.4

million for income and medical benefits, $58.6 million to administer the program ($32.7 million in OWCP direct 

costs and $25.9 million for legal adjudication and various financial management and investigative support provided 

by the Office of the Solicitor, the OALJ, the BRB, Office of the Inspector General, and the Department of the 

Treasury), and $364.8 million in bond payments.

In 1981, the Black Lung Benefits Revenue provisions temporarily increased the previous excise tax to $1.00 per ton 

for underground coal and $0.50 per ton on surface mined coal, with a cap of four percent of sales price. In 1986, 

under the Comprehensive Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, excise tax rates were increased again by 10 percent. 

The rates for underground and surface mined coal were raised to $1.10 and $0.55 per ton respectively, and the cap 

was increased to 4.4 percent of the sales price. Under current law, these tax rates will remain in effect until 

December 31, 2018, after which the rates will revert to their original levels of $0.50 underground, $0.25 surface, and 

a limit of two percent of sales price. 

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued to achieve improvements in operating efficiency and 

effectiveness. Timely and accurate medical bill processing is a critical element in administration of the Black Lung 

Program. During FY 2010, DCMWC avoided $609,000 in medical costs due to further improvements in the editing 

of bills.
16

In FY 2010, the vendor processed 215,501 Black Lung bills. A total of 99.9 percent of bills were processed within 

28 days. The number of telephone calls handled was 50,440. Enrollment of 2,614 new providers brought the total

of enrolled Black Lung providers to 122,658.

Legislative Action Affecting Entitlements: The Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act

As a result of the PPACA, enacted in March 2010, DCMWC experienced an increase of 62 percent in new Federal 

Black Lung claims filed in FY 2010 under Part C compared to FY 2009. Most DCMWC district offices received a 

major influx of new claims as a result of this new legislation during the third and fourth quarters of FY 2010. This 

increase of new claims caused an unexpected inventory of pending claims.

One important consequence of the PPACA is the reinstatement of the provision that dependent survivors of miners 

who were receiving benefits at the time of their death do not need to establish that the miner’s death was due to 

pneumoconiosis, but are automatically entitled to benefits. Although many eligible survivors of miner beneficiaries 

would have been awarded without this provision, they have received benefits sooner because extended case 

development and litigation was unnecessary.

Government Performance Results Act

In FY 2010, DCMWC continued its efforts to reach DOL’s GPRA goal to “minimize the human, social, and 

financial impact of work-related injuries for workers and their families.” At the beginning of FY 2010, DCMWC 

had set its goal to:

• Reduce the average time required to process a claim from the date of receipt to the issuance of a Proposed 

Decision and Order (PDO) to no more than 200 days.

By the end of FY 2010, however, the average time required to process a claim from the date of receipt to the date of 

the PDO had increased to 210 days. This was a result of a sudden and unexpected increase in new claims filed after 

enactment of the amendments included in the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act, from 4,354 in FY 2009 to 7,044 

in FY 2010, a 62 percent increase. These claim numbers include survivor’s conversions that are automatically 

awarded. Conversion claims numbered 444 in FY 2009 and 662 in FY 2010. The total inventory of claims pending 

a PDO increased from 2,290 at the close of FY 2009 to 4,140 at the end of FY 2010.

Although DCMWC no longer maintains its original GPRA goal of ensuring that 80 percent of claims have no 

requests for further action pending one year after receipt of the claim, it continues to monitor this figure. In FY 

2010, 81 percent of claims were resolved with no pending requests for further action. The Black Lung program will 

continue to work closely with both its stakeholder and authorized provider communities to ensure that delivery of 

services continues to improve and performance standards are met.

Black Lung Program Evaluation

At the beginning of FY 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report (GAO-10-7) assessing 

DOL’s policies and procedures regarding the processing and litigation of claims for Black Lung benefits, including 

some DCMWC procedures. As part of its response to the report, DCMWC took steps to improve physicians’ 

documentation of disease and disability, track claimant utilization of lay and attorney representation while a claim is 

pending before the district director, and established a mechanism to track complaints about testing practices from 

stakeholders.
17

Operation and Maintenance of Automated Support Package

DCMWC’s Automated Support Package (ASP) is provided through a contract. The ASP includes a client-server 

computer system for all black lung claims, statistical and data processing, telecommunications support, and 

administrative functions.

During FY 2010, DCMWC worked to successfully upgrade its server in the DB2 environment. DCMWC also 

implemented several changes to its ASP that improved the user’s search capability, enhanced available information 

about coal mine operators, and improved database security.

Stakeholder and Regulatory Assistance

Section 423 of the BLBA requires that each coal mine operator subject to the BLBA secure payment of any benefits 

liability by either qualifying as a self-insurer or insuring the risk with a stock or mutual company, an association, or a 

qualified fund or individual. Any coal mine operator failing to secure payment is subject to a civil penalty of up to 

$1,000 for each day of noncompliance.

According to FY 2010 estimates by DOL’s Mine Safety and Health Administration, there were 2,035 active coal 

mine operators subject to the requirements of the BLBA. Under the BLBA, the Secretary of Labor can authorize a 

coal mine operator to self-insure after an analysis of the company’s application and supporting documents. At the 

close of FY 2010, 77 active companies were authorized by the Secretary of Labor to self-insure. These selfinsurance authorizations cover approximately 720 subsidiaries and affiliated companies. 

The Responsible Operator (RO) Section staff in DCMWC’s national office is specifically assigned to record the 

existence of coal mine operators and their insurance status. The staff answers frequent written, telephone, and e-mail 

inquiries from operators and insurance carriers and evaluates requests for self-insurance.

During FY 2010, the RO section sent form letters to 600 coal mine operators reminding them of their statutory 

requirement to insure and stay insured against their potential liability for black lung benefits. Of these, 556 were 

found to be insured, 11 were insured through a parent entity or not engaged in coal mining, and 15 were uninsured

companies that required assistance. The remaining 18 were returned unclaimed, delivered with no response, or 

failed delivery for another reason. Letters also were mailed to commercial insurers reminding them of the statutory 

requirements for writing black lung insurance and for annual reporting to DCMWC of the companies insured and 

policy numbers. These letters generated many questions from underwriters and resulted in improved compliance. 

During FY 2010, DCMWC received 3,228 reports of new or renewed policies. 

Section 413(b) of the BLBA requires DCMWC to provide each individual miner who files a claim for benefits with 

the opportunity to undergo a complete pulmonary evaluation at no cost to the miner. The project to improve the 

quality of these medical evaluations and reports continued during FY 2010, with district directors and national office 

staff making a number of visits to clinics and individual physicians. At these site visits, DCMWC staff reviewed the 

physicians’ written evaluations of the medical information obtained during the complete pulmonary evaluations and 

made suggestions for improving and standardizing the evaluations and reports. DCMWC officials also met several 

times with physicians at state and national conferences of the National Coalition of Black Lung and Respiratory 

Disease Clinics to help improve reporting. During FY 2010, the program also focused on updating the list of 

approved diagnostic physicians by contacting many physicians in order to ensure that highly-qualified doctors were 

available to perform medical evaluations.

In FY 2010 the program continued its long-standing commitment to ensuring that payments to beneficiaries requiring 

assistance are properly utilized for their use and benefit. DCMWC continued to track district office actions in the 

appointment of representative payees due to physical or other incapacity. For FY 2010 DCMWC continued to
18

evaluate representative payee appointments and expenditure reports in order to ensure that benefits paid on behalf of 

the beneficiary are used in his/her best interest.

Litigation

Courts of Appeals

During FY 2010, the courts of appeals published three decisions in cases arising under the BLBA. Important 

holdings from these cases are summarized below:

Prevailing Market Rate for Attorney Fees – 20 C.F.R. § 725.366. The Fourth Circuit vacated an ALJ’s attorney 

fee award because she “excused” the attorney from his “well-established burden” to submit evidence that 

demonstrates the prevailing market rate for his services. Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, 602 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 

2010). The attorney submitted a published regional survey listing hourly rates charged by attorneys practicing in the 

South and Middle Atlantic regions. The ALJ rejected the survey, but then substituted her own computation of a 

reasonable rate for the fee. She took into consideration, among other factors, the risk of loss and the contingent 

nature of attorney fees. The court concluded the ALJ had erred. It emphasized that the attorney bears the burden to 

submit the necessary evidence. The court also emphasized that the prevailing rate should be determined by evidence 

of the rate received from paying clients for similar work performed in similar circumstances. As possible sources of 

evidence, it cited: fees the attorney has previously received in other BLBA cases; affidavits from other attorneys 

who are familiar with the attorney’s skills and that type of litigation in the relevant community; and fees awarded in 

other administrative proceedings of similar complexity to BLBA cases. Finally, the court noted that risk of loss is 

ordinarily incorporated into the hourly rate and should therefore be reflected in the prevailing market rate. The court 

remanded the case for the ALJ to reconsider the attorney fee based on relevant evidence to be submitted by the 

attorney.

Death Due to Pneumoconiosis – 20 C.F.R. § 718.205(c). The BLBA provides benefits to a deceased miner’s 

survivor if she proves pneumoconiosis caused or hastened the miner’s death. In Conley v. National Mines Corp., 

595 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2010), the Sixth Circuit reiterated its view that a physician’s opinion that pneumoconiosis 

“hastened” a miner’s death is sufficient to establish entitlement only if the physician credibly explains how “a 

specifically defined process” shortened the miner’s life “by an estimable time.” In this case, the parties agreed that 

metastatic lung cancer was the immediate cause of the miner’s death. The claimant submitted a physician’s opinion 

that pneumoconiosis hastened the miner’s death because the presence of that disease compromised his ability to 

survive longer from the effects of his cancer. The court determined that it was bound by its prior decision in 

Eastover Mining Co. v. Williams, 338 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding the hastening standard requires proof that a 

“specifically defined process [] reduce[d] the miner’s life by an estimable time.”). In the court’s view, the physician 

in this case merely stated a conclusory opinion in general terms which, if credited, would effectively link every 

miner’s death to pneumoconiosis because the disease weakened the miner and made him less resistant to another 

disease. Because the physician’s opinion was facially not credible, the court affirmed the BRB’s reversal of the ALJ 

award.

Sufficiency of ALJ Decision under Administrative Procedure Act – 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A). The 

Administrative Procedure Act, which applies to BLBA adjudications, requires an ALJ to provide reasons for 

crediting or rejecting evidence in making a determination on the record awarding or denying benefits. In this case, a 

majority of the Tenth Circuit panel vacated an ALJ’s decision awarding disability benefits because the decision 

lacked sufficient explanation of the ALJ’s evidentiary findings. Gunderson v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 601 F.3d 1013 

(10th Cir. 2010) (O’Brien, J. dissenting). The ALJ merely stated the evidence for and against the claimant’s 

entitlement was “evenly balanced, and should receive equal weight.” The court concluded it could not discern the 

ALJ’s rationale for reaching this conclusion. Although an ALJ may legitimately find the evidence is equally 

balanced, the court first required a thorough explanation justifying the lack of any genuine grounds to prefer one side
19

or the other. The court remanded the case for the ALJ to explain his findings in sufficient detail to permit judicial 

review. 

Benefits Review Board

During FY 2010, the Benefits Review Board (BRB) issued 529 decisions in cases arising under the BLBA, of which 

seven decisions were published. Important holdings from these cases are summarized below:

2010 Amendments to BLBA and Survivor Entitlement – 30 U.S.C. § 932(l). The Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) amended the BLBA by providing automatic entitlement for certain survivors 

of deceased miners if the miner was receiving BLBA benefits at death, the survivor filed a claim after January 1, 

2005, and the claim was pending on or after the March 23, 2010 enactment date of the PPACA. In Mathews v. 

United Pocahontas Coal Co., 24 BLR 1-193, 2010 WL 4035060 (Sept. 22, 2010), the BRB rejected an employer’s 

assertion that retroactive application of the amended provision violated both the Due Process and Takings clauses of 

the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Board reasoned that retroactive application of the 

amendment does not offend due process because it is justified by a rational legislative purpose – compensating the 

survivors of deceased miners for the miners’ employment-related injuries. It held that retroactive application does 

not constitute an unlawful taking because the operator had no reasonable expectation that its BLBA liabilities would 

not be increased through statutory amendments. 

Standard for Weighing Physicians’ Reports on Disability Causation – 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(c). In Stover v. 

Peabody Coal Co., 24 BLR 1-159, , 2010 WL 744707 (Jan. 27, 2010) (on reconsideration en banc), the BRB 

considered whether the Sixth Circuit changed the prevailing standard for evaluating the credibility of a physician’s 

opinion on disability causation in BLBA cases by adopting in a civil tort case a “differential diagnosis” test. The 

ALJ in this case awarded benefits after evaluating the medical evidence under the “documented and reasoned” 

standard set forth in Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d 251 (6th Cir. 1983). The employer argued that the ALJ 

must reconsider the medical evidence under the Sixth Circuit’s new differential diagnosis test, which, in its view, 

repudiated the Rowe standard The BRB rejected the employer’s argument, holding that the Sixth Circuit’s test did 

not apply to BLBA cases. It noted the court relied on the Rowe standard when reviewing a BLBA case even after it 

adopted the differential diagnosis test. The BRB concluded that the differential diagnosis test only applied to 

causation issues subject to Rule 702 of the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, which does not apply in BLBA claims.

 

Due Process. In Spangler v. Donna Kay Coal Co., Inc., 24 BLR 1-183, 2010 WL 3073549 (July 30, 2010), the 

BRB rejected the employer’s assertion that it was denied due process and thus should be relieved of liability for the 

claim. In an earlier proceeding, the BRB had vacated an ALJ’s denial of benefits and remanded the claim because 

the pulmonary evaluation that the Director is statutorily required to provide the claimant was flawed. The district 

director obtained a new examination and returned the claim to the ALJ. While the claim was pending before the 

ALJ, the miner died and his daughter-in-law was substituted as the claimant. Based on autopsy evidence, the parties 

stipulated to the miner’s entitlement and the ALJ issued an award. The employer appealed and argued that the delay 

caused by the Director’s failure to provide a reliable medical evaluation violated its due process rights. The BRB 

rejected this argument. Because the employer received notice of the claim, the opportunity to submit evidence, and 

stipulated to the miner’s entitlement, the BRB concluded that mere delay was not a basis for a due process violation. 

Trust Fund Liability for Attorney Fee. Under the BLBA regulations, a claimant who uses the services of an 

attorney in securing an award of benefits is entitled to have his attorney fees paid by the opposing party if that party

takes action to create an adversarial relationship between it and the claimant. In Duncan v. Director, OWCP, 24 

BLR 1-153, 2010 WL 744708 (Jan. 20, 2010), the BRB addressed whether the Trust Fund was liable for an attorney 

fee when the responsible operator was dismissed and the Fund never disputed the claimant’s entitlement. The district 

director designated a responsible operator and awarded benefits. The operator requested a hearing. The ALJ 

dismissed the operator and eventually awarded benefits on reconsideration. He refused to award an attorney fee 
20

because the Director had never challenged the claimant’s entitlement. The BRB reversed. It held the claimant’s 

attorney was entitled to a fee because “someone” contested the claim, which resulted in an adjudicative proceeding. 

As the party ultimately liable for the claim, the Trust Fund was also liable for the attorney fee regardless of which 

party -- the operator or the Fund -- created the adversarial relationship by declining to pay the claim.

Attorney Fee Petitions; Prevailing Market Rate. During FY 2010, the BRB issued several decisions addressing 

the evidence or information an attorney must provide to support a fee petition. In two virtually identical orders, the 

BRB rejected attorney fee petitions for work performed before it because the petitions lacked the attorney’s normal 

billing rate and proof of the prevailing market rate. Maggard v. International Coal Group, 24 BLR 1-172, 2010 WL

1849313 (Apr. 14, 2010); Bowman v. Bowman Coal Co., Inc., 24 BLR 1-165, 2010 WL 1849312 (Apr. 15, 2010). 

Both cases held the fee petitions were facially incomplete because the attorneys did not include the normal billing 

rates for each person performing services, which is required by a BRB rule. Both cases also held the attorneys failed 

to submit any proof concerning the prevailing market rates for legal services in the geographic areas of the litigation. 

Under Supreme Court precedent, an attorney seeking a fee under a fee-shifting statute must provide such market rate 

evidence to justify the requested fee. The BRB rejected the attorneys’ reliance on a published survey of regional law 

firm rates as competent evidence because the BRB could not determine whether the listed rates were comparable to 

the attorneys’ rates. In a third decision, the BRB vacated an ALJ’s fee award because it concluded the attorney did 

not meet his burden of producing sufficient evidence concerning the prevailing market rate. Parks v. Eastern 

Associated Coal Corp., 24 BLR 1-177, 2010 WL 2336261 (May 25, 2010).
21

1 Part C benefits are paid out of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund or by the liable coal mine operator or insurer.

2 Part B benefits are paid out of general revenue funds from the U.S. Treasury.

3 Part C administrative expenditures exclude DOL and Department of Treasury support costs of $25.8 million in FY 

2009 and $25.8 million in FY 2010, respectively. Also excludes interest on the Trust Fund debt.

4 Part C payments include only Trust Fund compensation and benefits (excluding collections from responsible coal 

mine operators for benefits paid by the Trust Fund on an interim basis, refunds for OWCP administrative costs paid, 

and other miscellaneous reimbursements). Excluded are self-insured mine operator and insurance carrier payments 

that totaled approximately $46.8 million in FY 2009 and $39.2 million in FY 2010, respectively.

BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT

Part C 1 Part B 2

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2009 FY 2010

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 171 168 17 16

OWCP Administrative Expenditures 3 $31.9 M $32.7 M $5.2 M $4.9 M

Total Compensation and Benefit Payments 4 $255.0 M $238.4 M $237.8 M $213.8 M

Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 26,080 24,067 28,911 25,593

 Medical Benefits Only 1,571 1,315 N/A N/A

Responsible Coal Mine Operator Beneficiaries

in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 4,415 4,317 N/A N/A

 Medical Benefits Only 563 482 N/A N/A
22

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT

Introduction

Enacted in 1927, the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) provides compensation for lost 

wages, medical benefits, and rehabilitation services to longshore, harbor, and other maritime workers who are 

injured during their employment or who contract an occupational disease related to employment. Survivor benefits 

also are provided if the work-related injury or disease causes the employee's death. These benefits are paid directly 

by an authorized self-insured employer, through an authorized insurance carrier, or in particular circumstances, by an 

industry-financed Special Fund.

In addition, LHWCA covers certain other employees through the following extensions to the Act:

• The Defense Base Act (DBA) of August 16, 1941, extends the benefits of the LHWCA to employees working 

outside the continental United States under certain circumstances set out in jurisdictional provisions. Primarily 

it covers all private employment on U.S. military bases overseas, land used for military purposes on U.S. 

territories and possessions, and U.S. Government contracts overseas.

• The Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act of June 19, 1952, covers civilian employees in post exchanges, 

service clubs, etc. of the Armed Forces.

• The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, 1953, extended Longshore benefits to employees of firms 

working on the outer continental shelf of the United States, such as off-shore drilling enterprises engaged in 

exploration for and development of natural resources.

• The District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act (DCCA), passed by Congress on May 17, 1928, 

extended the coverage provided by the Longshore Act to private employment in the District of Columbia. Since 

the District of Columbia passed its own workers' compensation act effective July 26, 1982, OWCP handles 

claims only for injuries prior to that date.

The original law entitled the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, provided coverage to certain 

maritime employees injured while working over navigable waters. These workers had been held excluded from state 

workers' compensation coverage by the Supreme Court (Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917)).

Operations

Disability compensation and medical benefits paid by insurers and self-insurers under LHWCA and its extensions

totaled $939.8 million in Calendar Year (CY) 2009, an 11.3 percent increase compared to CY 2008, which was 

largely attributable to continuing increases in payouts under the Defense Base Act.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, total DOL expenditures for program operations and the administration of LHWCA and its 

extensions were $26.6 million, of which $11.4 million were the direct costs of OWCP. The remaining $15.2 million
23

represent the cost of legal, audit, and investigative support provided by the Office of Administrative Law Judges 

(OALJ), the BRB, the Office of the Solicitor (SOL), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

At year’s end, the Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation (DLHWC) employed 87 people in the 

national office and 10 district offices.

During FY 2010, approximately 520 self-insured employers and insurance carriers reported 31,628 lost-time injuries 

under the LHWCA. At year's end, 15,016 maritime and other workers were in compensation payment status.

The conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, and related military activities in the Middle East continued to generate interest in 

Longshore program operations as they relate to the administration of the DBA in FY 2010. Injuries occurring under 

DBA are reported to DLHWC District Offices determined by the geographic location of the injury occurrence. 

During the year, a total of 14,680 cases of injury and death were reported under DBA.

Longshore Special Fund

The Special Fund under the LHWCA was established in the Treasury of the United States pursuant to section 44 of 

the Act and is administered by the national office of DLHWC. Proceeds of the fund are used for payments under 

section 10(h) of the LHWCA for annual adjustments in compensation for permanent total disability or death that 

occurred prior to the effective date of the 1972 amendments, under section 8(f) for second injury claims, under 

section 18(b) for cases involving employer insolvency, under sections 39(c) and 8(g) for providing rehabilitation 

assistance to persons covered under the LHWCA, and under section 7(e) to pay the cost of medical examinations.

The Special Fund is financed through fines and penalties levied under the LHWCA; $5,000 payments by employers 

for each instance in which a covered worker dies and when it is determined that there are no survivors eligible for

benefits; interest payments on Fund investments; and payment of annual assessments by authorized insurance carriers 

and self-insurers. Fines, penalties, and death benefit levies constitute a small portion of the total amount paid into 

the Special Fund each year. The largest single source of money for the fund is the annual assessment.

A separate fund under the DCCA is also administered by OWCP. Payments to and from this fund apply only to the 

DCCA.

The LHWCA Special Fund paid $128.1 million in benefits in FY 2010, of which $116.7 million was for second 

injury (section 8(f)) claims. FY 2010 expenditures from the DCCA Special Fund totaled $9.4 million, of which $8.6

million was for second injury cases.

Government Performance Results Act

In FY 2010 under the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), DLHWC measured the percentage of the 

Employer’s First Report of Injury and the First Payment of Compensation for Defense Base Act (DBA) cases filed 

within 30 days. The First Report of Injury measure tracks the time from the date of injury or death, or the date of 

the employer’s knowledge of the injury and the onset of the disability. This GPRA goal for injury report timeliness 

for DBA cases was exceeded as 75 percent of the cases were filed within 30 days against the target of 63 percent.

The First Payment of Compensation measure tracks the time it takes the employer or insurance carrier to issue the 

first payment after the worker becomes disabled or after death. In FY 2010 the GPRA target for this measure also 

was exceeded, with 56 percent of the initial payments for compensation being issued within 30 days versus the 50 

percent target.

The growing number of DBA cases present significant challenges for the Longshore program. Between FY 2002

and FY 2010, DBA injury and death claims received have increased from 347 to 14,680. Because of overseas’ 
24

communications, geographic and other limitations, DBA claims typically entail lengthy and more resource-intensive 

development time for employers/carriers. Performance goals focus on the role these employers/carriers play in 

achieving results. The Longshore program will continue to work with large employers and carriers to improve 

timeliness in both the filing of injury reports and payment of benefits.

In FY 2011, two new indicators will be added to measure first injury reporting and first payment timeliness for all 

other (non-DBA) cases.

Performance Assessment

In addition to outcomes measured under GPRA, DLHWC monitors program performance in several areas, as 

indicated in the program’s annual Operational Plan. Performance standards are sustained for all goals within the 

plan. The most noteworthy of these is dispute resolution (previously a GPRA goal, FY 2001 – FY 2009). For 

example, in FY 2010, the district offices conducted 3,275 informal conferences that were designed to establish the 

facts in each case, define the disputed issues and the positions of the parties in respect to those issues, and encourage 

their voluntary resolution by means of agreement and/or compromise. DLHWC continued to work on its national 

goal of improving the speed of its dispute resolution system to assist injured workers and employers/carriers in 

resolving disputed claim issues. Only three of the ten DLHWC District Offices met or exceeded their targets in this 

area in FY 2010, which is reflective of the staffing shortfalls at both the OWCP and OALJ levels of jurisdiction, and 

competition for compensation dollars among the stakeholders during times of economic uncertainty.

Other outputs include Hearing Referral timeliness, Special Fund Application Review timeliness, Request for 

Informal Conference Action timeliness, Conference Recommendation timeliness, Congressional Inquiry Response 

timeliness, and Vocational Rehabilitation Return to Work effectiveness. DLHWC met or exceeded the 

goals/standards in all of these areas for FY 2010.

Claims Management and Compliance Assistance Activities

The number of DBA injury and death reports of civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan continued at a very high 

level in FY 2010, with new cases totaling 10,516, of which 426 involved the death of a worker. Between September 

1, 2001 and September 30, 2010, a total of 67,192 DBA cases were reported, including 2,400 deaths, of which 

49,993 cases (2,101 deaths) originated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In response to this burgeoning number of DBA claims, DLHWC continued to handle these claims by initial 

screening and claim creation in the New York City District Office, then distributing the domestic claims to the 

district office nearest the claimant’s home, ensuring that the districts with the highest number of claims were staffed 

with the highest number of claim specialists.

The Longshore program continued its efforts to address issues and questions about the ongoing increases in DBA

claims arising from Iraq and Afghanistan. The staff has worked diligently to address such issues as the effective 

handling of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder claims and the challenges of managing the claims of Iraqi and Afghani 

nationals in nations with complex cultural differences, communications challenges, banking and infrastructure 

difficulties, and lack of available medical care. The major participants, including insurance companies and

contracting agencies, were invited to meetings throughout the year to discuss and resolve these issues in advance of 

their becoming major problems. 

Additionally, the quickly escalating number of Freedom of Information Act requests, Congressional inquiries, 

requests for data and analysis, media questions, and submissions from contracting agencies, contractors, insurers, 

attorneys, and claimants continued at very high levels, requiring prioritization.
25

The Longshore program’s efforts to enhance its Compliance Assistance to the public continued in FY 2010, with 

more information added to its website, continued local surveys of industry to identify pockets of coverage 

compliance deficiencies, and public speaking at many conferences and seminars around the country.

DBA Operational Reforms

As the State Department ramped up contracting activity in Iraq to replace the withdrawn troops and as activity in 

Afghanistan continued to increase and escalate in violence, the number and severity of DBA claims have 

correspondingly increased. As a result, there was increased interest within the Longshore/DBA stakeholder 

community and Congress during FY 2010 in refining and enhancing the DBA claims operations.

Under instruction from Congress to develop alternative approaches to the DBA that would both provide better 

service to injured workers and lower the overall costs of the private sector DBA insurance, DLHWC worked on 

developing alternative approaches which would achieve both goals.

DLHWC developed a number of other DBA program enhancements, including:

• Increasing the number of direct meetings with insurance executives to address DBA issues and lay out specific 

plans for resolving problems.

• Initiation of new national performance measures to improve the timeliness of submitting first reports of injury 

and of issuing first benefit payments.

• Development and implementation of an Industry Report Card that measures and publicizes on the Longshore 

website the timeliness of insurance companies’ injury reporting and initial payment actions.

Automated Reporting Enhancements

DLHWC implemented an electronic insurance policy reporting system during FY 2010 that allows carriers to report 

and update policy information automatically via a partnership with the National Council on Compensation Insurance. 

This system allows insurance companies to simply report via their typical state workers’ compensation reporting 

programs to DLHWC for the first time, replacing a cumbersome and costly paper reporting requirement.

Rehabilitation Activities

Again during FY 2010, the impact of the economic slowdown on the job market played a significant role in the 

Longshore Rehabilitation program during the year. The job market continued in its depressed state throughout the 

year, making the job of locating opportunities for rehabilitation program participants more challenging. Despite 

these challenges and in addition to the hurdles experienced in normal rehabilitation efforts, the program was very 

successful during the year, achieving 116 percent of its placement goal. This success is due to the excellent work of 

the professional providers and the oversight of DLHWC’s district office staff and to the cooperation of the larger 

employers in the system, notably the shipyards and Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities.

The Rehabilitation program in Norfolk, Virginia has achieved excellent results from an early intervention effort with 

the local employer community, and this approach will be expanded to other districts over the coming year.

Regulatory Activity

In FY 2010, DLHWC proposed new regulations to implement provisions of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 that addressed the recreational vessel industry. These proposed regulations would define 
26

‘recreational vessel,’ and clarify a number of issues, including coverage for employees who perform both maritime 

and non-maritime work (‘walk in and out of coverage”) during a typical work day. The Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2010. The sixty days public comment period was 

extended to November 26, 2010.

Litigation

During FY 2010, the courts of appeals published fourteen decisions that discussed issues arising under the LHWCA 

or its extensions. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) issued 195 decisions, of which twenty-three decisions were 

published. Important points from some of these cases are summarized below.

Courts of Appeals

Proper Court for Initial Judicial Review of Defense Base Act appeals -- 42 U.S.C. § 1653(b). Agreeing with the 

Director, the Second Circuit held that the court of appeals, not the district court, has jurisdiction over an appeal from 

the BRB involving a claim arising under the DBA. Service Employees International, Inc. v. Director, OWCP 

(Barrios), 595 F.3d 447 (2d Cir. 2010) (Cabranes, J., dissenting). The employee worked as a tank-truck driver in 

Iraq for approximately one year. He developed eye strain and irritation, and his employment was eventually 

terminated. The district director sitting in the New York compensation district filed and served a decision issued by 

an ALJ awarding disability compensation, and the BRB affirmed. Prior to the 1972 LHWCA amendments, parties 

aggrieved by orders issued by deputy commissioners (now district directors) sought an injunction in the federal 

district court where the injury occurred. The 1972 amendments transferred the district directors’ hearing authority to 

ALJs, established the BRB to review appeals from the ALJ decisions, and authorized the courts of appeals to decide 

appeals from final BRB decisions. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits held that appeals from BRB decisions in DBA 

cases are reviewable initially in the courts of appeals because the DBA incorporates the LHWCA, including the 

LHWCA's 1972 amendments, except as otherwise modified. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits held that 

district courts, not the courts of appeals, exercise initial judicial review authority over appeals from the BRB on the 

theory that the DBA's review provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1653(b), expressly provides for review in the district court and 

this is an intended modification of the LHWCA. The Second Circuit reasoned that section 1653(b) is ambiguous 

because, read literally, it vests initial review authority in both the district courts and the courts of appeal. To resolve 

that ambiguity, the Court considered that one legislative purpose of the 1972 amendments was to expedite the claims 

process and concluded that this change was intended to apply to DBA claims as well. The Court found that the only 

reason the DBA included section 1653(b) was to identify the proper judicial district for claims arising out of injuries 

that occur overseas. Because the district director who filed and served the compensation order here was located in 

New York, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to conduct the initial judicial review of the BRB decision.

Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Acceptable Audiograms – 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(13)(E). Section 

908(c)(13) (E) states a hearing-loss determination “shall be made in accordance with” the AMA GUIDES TO THE 

EVALUATION OF PERMANENT IMPAIRMENT. In Green-Brown v. Sealand Services, Inc., 586 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2009), 

the Fourth Circuit addressed whether a hearing-loss compensation award may be based on an audiogram that does 

not fully comply with the AMA GUIDES. The employee underwent a series of audiograms after his retirement. Only 

the last audiogram fully complied with the AMA GUIDES for testing at specified noise levels. The ALJ based his 

determination on an earlier, noncompliant, audiogram considered reliable by a medical specialist. The Court held 

that the statutory provision “unequivocally mandates” that determinations of hearing loss shall be made according to 

the AMA GUIDES, reversed the BRB's decision affirming the ALJ, and remanded for entry of an award based on the 

audiogram that complied with the AMA GUIDES. 

Calculation of a Reasonable Hourly Rate for Attorneys Fee Under Section 928 – 33 U.S.C. § 928. Section 928 

is a fee-shifting statute incorporating the "lodestar analysis" developed by the courts to determine attorney fee 

amounts. The starting point of the analysis is to multiply the number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable 

hourly rate. Factors relevant to the hourly rate calculation in a lodestar analysis include a determination of the 
27

proper geographic market. In Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. Holiday, 591 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 

2009), the Fourth Circuit found that the BRB abused its discretion in awarding an hourly rate of $250 to counsel who 

succeeded in persuading the BRB to reverse the ALJ's denial of the claim. Although counsel performed all the work 

associated with the appeal in Washington, DC, the BRB stated only that "the prevailing hourly rate for claimants' 

attorneys in the geographic area where this case arose is $250." In rejecting the Board's fee determination, the Court 

held that the BRB must decide whether the hourly rate should be determined with reference to Georgia where the 

case was heard by the ALJ or Washington, DC where the BRB sits and counsel performed the services for which 

fees were sought. The Court further held that the BRB must explain how it determined the rate within the relevant 

geographic market and to do so, may consider, but is not bound by, the Laffey matrix fee schedule developed to 

determine hourly rates of lawyers in Washington, DC.

State Insurance Guaranty Association Liable for Occupational Disease Claim as Last Responsible Carrier. 

The Fifth Circuit found the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) liable for a LHWCA claim when the 

employer’s original insurer at the time of the employee’s last injurious exposure was insolvent. La. Ins. Guaranty 

Ass’n v. Director, OWCP [Harvey], 614 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 2010). LIGA is a state-created guaranty fund that 

assumes liability for certain claims when the employer’s own insurer is no longer available to pay. The Court 

rejected LIGA’s argument that it was not a “carrier” because Louisiana law requires LIGA to assume liability to the 

same extent as was borne by the insolvent insurance carrier. The Court also rejected LIGA's argument that a pro rata 

recovery scheme should be applied instead of the LHWCA's "last responsible carrier" rule even though the state 

guaranty statute provided for the pro rata scheme. The Court held LIGA responsible for the employee’s medical 

benefits and held that it was not entitled to a credit for medical expenses paid by another insurer without first 

submitting evidence of that insurer’s actual payment or obligation to pay. Finally, the Court affirmed, as supported 

by substantial evidence, the ALJ’s factual findings on the employee’s last injurious exposure, his involuntary 

retirement status, and his total disability.

Undocumented Immigrant’s Status as Covered “Employee” – 33 U.S.C. § 902(3). The Fifth Circuit considered 

whether an undocumented immigrant is eligible for LHWCA benefits regardless of his immigration status. Bollinger

Shipyards, Inc. v. Director, OWCP [Rodriguez], 604 F.3d 864 (5th Cir. 2010) (Garwood, J. concurring). The 

injured employee presented a false Social Security number when hired and worked for the employer for 

approximately six months before he sustained an injury. The employer terminated the voluntary payment of benefits 

when it discovered his undocumented status. An ALJ held a hearing, found the employee totally disabled, and also 

found that undocumented immigrants are eligible for LHWCA benefits. The employer argued to the Court that 

benefits should not be awarded because the basis for any disability award would be wages that were obtained 

illegally. Several amici filed briefs with the Court on both sides of the question. The Court held the employee was 

covered by the LHWCA. It relied on the plain meaning of “employee” as defined in the Act, which makes no 

reference to immigration status. The Court also cited the statutory eligibility given nonresident aliens to receive 

benefits (33 U.S.C. § 909(g)), and Fifth Circuit precedent recognizing an undocumented employee’s right to sue a 

vessel owner in tort under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). Finally, the Court rejected the employer’s argument that awarding 

benefits to an undocumented immigrant who used a fraudulent Social Security number to obtain employment would 

undermine the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). The Court concluded that the LHWCA did not intrude 

on IRCA’s objectives given that the LHWCA expressly provides benefits to legal aliens. Finally, the Court 

distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002).

Paid Holidays as “Days Worked” for Calculating Average Weekly Wage – 33 U.S.C. § 910(a). Section 910(a) 

provides that the average annual earnings for a five-day-per-week worker are computed by multiplying two hundred 

and sixty times the average daily wage "which he shall have earned during the days when so employed." To apply 

10(a), the worker's total income earned in the 52 weeks prior to the injury is divided by the number of "days when so 

employed." The Ninth Circuit addressed the question whether paid holidays, during which the employee did not 

actually work, should be included as “days worked” for purposes of calculating the employee’s average weekly 

wage. Trachsel v. Rogers Terminal & Shipbuilding Corp., 597 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2010). Following the reasoning in 

a Fifth Circuit decision that required vacation days to be counted as “days worked,” the Court held paid holidays
28

should also be counted as “days worked” if the employee is paid for that day as if he actually worked it. The Court 

reasoned that inclusion was necessary in order to approximate what the employee could theoretically have been 

expected to earn.

OCSLA Coverage Test – 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b). The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the Outer Continental Shelf 

Lands Act (OCSLA) to cover an injury sustained off the Outer Continental Shelf (at a shoreside facility owned by the

OCSLA employer) when the injury occurs as the result of operations on the Shelf. Valladolid v. Pacific Operations 

Offshore, L.L.P., 604 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2010). The employee worked 98 percent of the time on two offshore oil 

platforms as a roustabout. He died in a forklift accident at the employer’s onshore oil-processing facility. Because 

the facility lacked direct access to navigable water and was not adjacent to any property involving maritime 

activities, the Court affirmed the BRB's holding that the employee did not satisfy the LHWCA's situs test and 

therefore the LHWCA did not apply directly. However, the Court reversed the BRB's denial of coverage under the 

OCSLA. The Court held that OCSLA section 1333(b) extends compensation under the LHWCA to any injury 

resulting from operations on the Outer Continental Shelf and did not require the injury to take place on the Shelf. It 

defined “resulting from operations” on the Shelf to require a substantial nexus between the injury and the employer’s 

operations. The Court remanded the case for application of the new test and because the question remained whether 

the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The employer has petitioned the Supreme Court for 

certiorari in this case.

No Coverage for Psychological Injuries Caused by Legitimate Personnel Actions – 33 U.S.C. § 902(2). The 

Ninth Circuit resolved an issue of first impression at the appellate level concerning the compensability of an 

employee’s psychological injury resulting from his employer’s legitimate adverse personnel action. Pedroza v. 

National Steel & Shipbuilding Co., 583 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2009), amended, 624 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2010). The 

employee was disciplined after he caused an electrical explosion while driving a forklift. He eventually was 

demoted; he also received medical treatment for psychological problems that were due solely to the discipline and 

demotion and not to the accident or generally stressful working conditions. The Court agreed with BRB precedent 

holding that psychological injuries arising out of legitimate personnel actions (excluding actual termination of 

employment) are not covered by the LHWCA because such actions are not “working conditions” that could cause 

those injuries. The Court concluded this interpretation of “working conditions” avoids a “trap for the unwary” 

employer who would otherwise simply fire the employee or limit its adverse personnel actions because of the threat 

of a worker’s compensation claim. As the employee had conceded his demotion was legitimate, the Court held he 

could not recover disability benefits for his resulting psychological problems.

Benefits Review Board

Defense Base Act: Coverage Based on Contract with the United States (42 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(4)); Employee 

Status (42 U.S.C. § 1651(a)); Exclusivity of Remedy (42 U.S.C. § 1651(c)). The BRB considered several issues 

raised by the employer’s summary judgment motion in a claim for death benefits filed pursuant to the Defense Base 

Act (DBA). Irby v. Blackwater Security Consulting, 44 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 17, 2010 WL 1849314 (Apr. 14, 2010). 

The decedent-employee worked for the employer providing security pursuant to a contract, and died while employed

in Iraq. The ALJ granted the employer’s summary judgment and denied the DBA claim. The BRB vacated the 

ALJ’s order but affirmed certain findings. Section 1651(a)(4) requires a contract between the United States and a 

private entity to perform “public work” abroad in order to establish DBA coverage. The BRB held the ALJ 

erroneously drew an inference in favor of employer on a material fact concerning the existence of a contract or 

subcontract between the United States, another contractor and the employer when none of the contracts were in 

evidence. The BRB held that the decedent provided security pursuant to a “service contract” involving a “public 

work” relating to “war activities” for purposes of § 1654(a)(4). The BRB also concluded the ALJ erroneously found 

the decedent was an independent contractor rather than an “employee” without considering the appropriate legal test

and relevant evidence. It held the DBA, like the LHWCA, does not apply to independent contractors. Because the 

DBA does not define “employee,” the BRB further held an employee must satisfy the common law “master-servant” 

test to be covered by the DBA. Finally, the BRB upheld the ALJ’s finding that the DBA provides the claimant’s
29

exclusive remedy because the evidence, as a matter of law, failed to prove the employer actually intended to harm 

the decedent or cause his death.

Defense Base Act: Coverage Based on Contract between an Agency of the United States Government and 

Employer – 42 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(4). Section 1651(a)(4) requires a contract between the United States or an agency 

of the United States and a private entity to perform “public work” abroad to establish DBA coverage. In Tisdale v. 

American Logistics Services et al., 44 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 29, 2010 WL 1812843 (Apr. 29, 2010), the BRB 

addressed whether the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was an “agency” of the United States Government 

that contracted with a private entity to perform “public work” in Iraq. The employer (a Kuwaiti company) hired the 

employee to work in Iraq. The employer contracted with the CPA for the work. Because the LHWCA and DBA do 

not define “agency,” the BRB extensively reviewed the origins of the CPA and the few cases that have considered 

that entity in order to determine whether the employee was covered by the DBA. The Director urged, and the BRB 

agreed, that the appropriate test should be the “degree of control” test adopted by the Second Circuit. The test 

considers whether (i) the United States has significant (but not necessarily exclusive) control over the entity; (ii) the 

entity serves a government purpose; (iii) private profit is excluded; and (iv) employment is restricted to governmentconnected persons. The BRB concluded the CPA met each of the criteria: the United States appointed the CPA 

administrator and was the most prominent member of the coalition forces controlling Iraq; the coalition forces were 

responsible for Iraq, which promoted United States interests as the leader of those forces; most of the CPA’s funding 

came from United States assets that were used to promote government purposes; and United States citizens 

constituted the overwhelming majority of CPA employees. The BRB therefore held the employee worked for an 

entity that had contracted with an agency of the United States to perform public work in Iraq, which conferred DBA 

coverage.

Market Rate for Attorney's Fees – 28 U.S.C. § 928. In Christensen v. Stevedoring Services of America, 44 Ben. 

Rev. Bd. Serv. 39, 2010 WL 2256182 (May 13, 2010), modifying on recon., 43 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 145 (2009), the 

employee’s attorney moved the BRB to reconsider its decision awarding him an attorney's fee based on its 

calculation of the market rate for attorneys practicing in the Portland, Oregon area. The BRB had used the 2006 data 

from the Oregon Bar Survey. The BRB averaged three types of practice: workers’ compensation, plaintiff personal 

injury civil litigation, and plaintiff general civil litigation. After averaging the market rates for these practices, the 

BRB used the percentage increases in Federal locality pay tables for the Portland area to determine attorney fee 

market rate increases for 2006 and 2008, i.e., the years the attorney had performed services in the case. The BRB 

then based the fee award on the market rates as it had computed them. On reconsideration, the BRB accepted the 

attorney’s argument that the workers’ compensation rate should be excluded because state law caps the amount of the

fee and insurance community attorneys receive lower rates due to the steady work the community provides. The 

BRB recalculated the attorney’s market rate for 2006 and 2008 using the plaintiff personal injury and general civil 

litigation rates and awarded a modified fee. The BRB also refused to account for the delay in payment by using only 

the higher 2008 rate for the entire fee because that methodology would represent the unauthorized payment of 

interest attributable solely to appeals of attorney’s fee awards.

Employer Attorney Fee Liability – 33 U.S.C. § 928. Section 928(a) shifts attorney fee liability to an employer if 

the employee files a claim, the employer controverts the claim, the employee retains an attorney and thereafter 

obtains a compensation award. Section 928(b) provides for the shifting of fee liability under different conditions if 

the employer has voluntarily paid compensation. In Green v. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc., 43 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 

173, 2010 WL 545996 (Jan. 12, 2010), the employer attempted to make the terms of section 928(b), rather than 

section 928(a), applicable by purporting to pay compensation voluntarily instead of controverting the claim. When 

the employer first became aware of the employee’s claim for hearing loss, the employer immediately filed a notice of 

controversion. After receiving formal notice of the claim from the district director, the employer tendered $1 –

contending that the $1 constituted a compensation payment. The employer made no more voluntary payments and 

continued to controvert the claim. The BRB held the ALJ rationally found the employer’s $1 payment was simply an 

attempt to avoid fee liability rather than a genuine voluntary payment of compensation. Because the employer had 

not paid compensation prior to its controversion, the BRB held it became liable for the employee’s attorneys’ fee 

award pursuant to Section 928(a).
30

Time for Requesting Modification Based on Last Payment of Compensation – 33 U.S.C. § 922. A party may 

petition for modification of an award within one year after the last payment of compensation based on a change in 

condition or a factual mistake in the underlying award. 33 U.S.C. § 922. Voluntary payment by the employer tolls 

the one-year period. In Wheeler v. Newport New Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 43 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 179, 2010 

WL 387190 (Jan. 26, 2010), the employer paid the employee’s scheduled permanent partial disability award and 

after the scheduled award was completed, voluntarily continued to pay medical expenses. The employer paid the 

providers directly. Four years after the last payment on her disability claim, but within one year of the employer's 

most recent payment of medical expenses, the employee petitioned for modification. Section 902(12) defines 

“compensation” as money “payable to an employee.” 33 U.S.C. § 902(12). The BRB held the modification petition 

was untimely. Citing Supreme Court and court of appeals precedent interpreting other LHWCA provisions, the BRB 

reasoned that a payment of compensation for purposes of Section 922 means a payment by the employer to the 

claimant. Because the employer paid the medical providers directly rather than the employee for expenses incurred 

in her medical treatment, the payments were not “compensation” that would toll the Section 922 limitation period. 

State Insurance Guaranty Association Liability for LHWCA Claims. In Zamora v. Friede Goldman Halter, 

Inc., 43 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 160, 2009 WL 4548853 (Nov. 25, 2009), the BRB addressed the Texas Property and 

Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association’s (TPCIGA) liability for attorneys’ fees under the LHWCA when the 

employer’s original insurer was insolvent. An employer may be liable for an employee’s attorneys’ fees under 

certain conditions. 33 U.S.C. § 928(a). The employee met all of the criteria for shifting fee liability to his employer. 

Because the employer was bankrupt and its insurer was declared “impaired,” Texas law required the TPCIGA to 

assume liability if the employee’s LHWCA claim was a “covered claim” as defined by the TPCIGA enabling statute. 

The BRB found applicable the version of the state guaranty law in effect when the insurer became impaired in 2001. 

The statute provided that a “covered claim” did not include attorneys’ fees incurred prior to the date an insurer 

became impaired. Because the statute did not expressly exclude attorneys’ fees incurred after that date, the BRB 

held the TPCIGA was liable for those fees. The BRB further held that the employer, although bankrupt, was 

responsible for the fees incurred prior to the insurer’s date of impairment because 33 U.S.C. § 904(a) imposes 

primary compensation liability on an employer and that liability is not extinguished by the insurer’s bankruptcy.

Concurrent Disability Awards for Separate Injuries. The employee received a scheduled award for hearing loss 

and a separate award for a back injury. The back-injury award paid various types of compensation for distinct 

periods, but eventually culminated in a continuing permanent partial disability award. As a scheduled award, the 

hearing-loss award was payable for a statutorily prescribed period of weeks. Except for the five days of payment that

the hearing-loss award pre-dated the back-injury award, the two awards were paid concurrently for a period of time. 

The ALJ found the hearing-loss award was payable only for the first five days; thereafter, it was permanently 

subsumed in the back-injury award. In Bogden v. Consolidation Coal Co., 44 Ben. Rev. Bd. Serv. 43, 2010 WL 

2716790 (June 14, 2010), the BRB held the hearing-loss award was subsumed in the back-injury award only for the 

duration of the back-injury award. Once the back-injury award converted to permanent partial disability 

compensation, the BRB held the hearing-loss award could be revived. Finally, the BRB held the employee could 

receive payment on the concurrent awards up to the statutory maximum for permanent total disability. In order to 

ensure the employee received the full benefit of both awards, the BRB held the number of weeks for which the 

hearing-loss award was payable could be extended until the full amount of that award had been paid.
31

1 Direct administrative costs to OWCP only, including Trust Funds; excludes DOL costs of $13.7 million in FY 2009

and $15.2 million in FY 2010, respectively, for support provided by the OALJ, BRB, SOL, and OIG.

2 Figures are for CY 2008 and CY 2009, respectively. Note: Total compensation paid does not equal the sum of the 

sources of compensation due to the different time periods (CY v. FY) by which the various data are reported. For 

Special Fund assessment billing purposes as required by section 44 of LHWCA, compensation and medical benefit 

payments made by insurance carriers and self-insured employers under the Acts are reported to DOL for the previous 

calendar year.

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT

FY 2009 FY 2010

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 98 87

Administrative Expenditures 1 $12.8 M $13.4 M

Lost-Time Injuries Reported 28,952 31,628

Total Compensation Paid 2 $983.8 M $1,084.8 M

 Wage-Loss and Survivor Benefits $706.0 M $768.8 M

 Medical Benefits $277.8 M $316.0 M

Sources of Compensation Paid

 Insurance Companies 2 $504.3 M $551.7 M

 Self-Insured Employers 2 $340.3 M $388.1 M

 LHWCA Special Fund $132.7 M $128.1 M

 DCCA Special Fund $10.1 M $9.4 M

 DOL Appropriation $2.2 M $2.0 M
32

ENERGY EMPLOYEES 

OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS 

COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT

Introduction

Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) in October 

2000. Part B of the EEOICPA, effective on July 31, 2001, compensates current or former employees (or their 

survivors) of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and certain of its vendors, contractors and 

subcontractors, who were diagnosed with a radiogenic cancer, chronic beryllium disease, beryllium sensitivity or 

chronic silicosis as a result of exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica while employed at covered facilities. The 

EEOICPA also provides compensation to individuals (or their eligible survivors) awarded benefits by the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) under Section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). 

Part E of the EEOICPA (enacted October 28, 2004) replaced the former Part D and compensates DOE 

contractor/subcontractor employees, eligible survivors of such employees, and uranium miners, millers, and ore 

transporters as defined by RECA Section 5 for any occupational illnesses that are linked to toxic exposures in the 

DOE or mining work environment. 

On July 31, 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL) marked the ninth anniversary of its administration of the 

EEOICPA. DOL has served a far larger claimant population than even the proponents of the statute predicted at the 

time of enactment, and the compensation totals have far exceeded Congress’ initial expectations. From the 

program’s inception to the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation (DEEOIC) has awarded compensation and medical benefits totaling over $6.2 billion under both Parts 

B and E of the EEOICPA. During this time, 63,010 employees or their families have received over $5.6 billion in 

compensation and nearly $590 million in medical expenses associated with the treatment of accepted medical 

conditions. Part B compensation has totaled more than $3.5 billion (since 2001) while Part E compensation has 

totaled more than $2.1 billion (since 2005).

In FY 2010 alone, 5,034 employees or their families received $448.7 million in Part B compensation. In addition, 

4,429 employees or their eligible survivors received $381.0 million in Part E compensation. A total of $212.3

million was paid in covered medical benefits in FY 2010 under both Parts B and E of the EEOICPA, bringing total 

benefits to over $1 billion for the year.

Administration

Implementation of the EEOICPA is a uniquely intergovernmental activity, involving the coordinated efforts of four 

federal agencies to administer: DOL, DOE, DOJ, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). DOL 

has primary responsibility for administering the EEOICPA, including adjudication of claims for compensation and 

payment of benefits for conditions covered by Parts B and E.
33

DOE designates Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) facilities and provides DOL and HHS with verification of 

covered employment and relevant information on exposures including access to restricted data. DOJ notifies 

beneficiaries who have received an award of benefits under RECA Section 5 of their possible EEOICPA eligibility 

and provides RECA claimants with information required by DOL to complete the claim development process.

HHS, through its National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), establishes procedures for 

estimating radiation doses, develops guidelines to determine the probability that a cancer was caused by workplace 

exposure to radiation, establishes procedures for designation of new Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) classes, and 

carries out the actual dose reconstruction for cases referred by DOL. Under the EEOICPA, Congress established the 

SEC to allow eligible claims to be compensated without the completion of a radiation dose reconstruction or 

determination of the probability of causation. To qualify for compensation under the SEC, a covered employee must 

have at least one of twenty-two "specified cancers" and have worked for a certain period of time at a facility

designated in the statute or by HHS as a class within the SEC. HHS also provides administrative services and other 

necessary support to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. The Board advises HHS on the scientific 

validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts, and receives and provides recommendations on petitions 

submitted requesting additional classes of employees for inclusion as members of the SEC.

Benefits under the EEOICPA

Part B. To qualify for benefits under Part B of the EEOICPA, an employee must have worked for DOE or a DOE 

contractor or subcontractor during a covered time period at a DOE facility, or have worked for a private company 

designated as a covered AWE or beryllium vendor. The worker must have developed cancer, chronic beryllium 

disease, or beryllium sensitivity due to exposures at a covered work site, or chronic silicosis (for individuals who 

worked in Nevada and Alaskan nuclear test tunnels). A covered employee who qualifies for benefits under Part B 

may receive a one-time lump-sum payment of $150,000, plus medical expenses related to an accepted, covered 

condition. Survivors of these workers may also be eligible for a lump-sum compensation payment. Part B also 

provides for payment of $50,000 to uranium workers (or their eligible survivors) who received an award from DOJ 

under Section 5 of the RECA.

For all claims filed under Part B, the employment and illness documentation is developed by claims staff and 

evaluated in accordance with the criteria in the EEOICPA and relevant regulations and procedures. DOL district 

offices then issue recommended decisions to claimants. Claims filed under Part B for the $50,000 RECA 

supplement are the least complex, involving verification by DOJ that a RECA award has been made, and 

documentation of the identity of the claimant (including survivor relationship). DOL can also move quickly on cases 

involving “specified cancers” at SEC facilities because the EEOICPA provides a presumption that any of the twentytwo listed cancers incurred by an SEC worker was caused by radiation exposure at the SEC facility. For cases 

involving claimed cancers that are not covered by SEC provisions (that is, either cancers incurred at a non-SEC 

facility, a non-specified cancer incurred at an SEC facility, or an employee who did not have sufficient employment 

duration to qualify for the SEC designation), there is an intervening step in the process to determine causation called 

“dose reconstruction.” In these instances, once DOL determines that a worker was a covered employee and that he 

or she had a diagnosis of cancer, the case is referred to NIOSH so that the individual’s radiation dose can be 

estimated. After NIOSH completes the dose reconstruction and calculates a dose estimate for the worker, DOL takes 

this estimate and applies the methodology promulgated by HHS in its probability of causation regulation to 

determine if the statutory causality test is met. The standard is met if the cancer was “at least as likely as not” related 

to covered employment, as indicated by a determination of at least 50 percent probability.

Part E. The EEOICPA’s Part E establishes a system of federal payments for employees of DOE contractors and 

subcontractors (or their eligible survivors) for illnesses determined to have resulted from exposure to toxic 

substances at a covered DOE facility. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters as defined by Section 5 of the 

RECA may also be eligible to receive Part E benefits. Benefits are provided for any illness if it can be determined 

that it was “at least as likely as not” that work-related exposure to a toxic substance was a significant factor in
34

causing, contributing to, or aggravating the illness or death of an employee. Additionally, the EEOICPA provides 

that any determination made under Part B to award benefits (including RECA Section 5 claims) is an automatic 

acceptance under Part E for causation of the illness, where the employment criteria are also met. The maximum 

payable compensation under Part E is $250,000 for all claims relating to any individual employee, meaning that a 

total of $400,000 can be paid in Part B plus E compensation with respect to a single worker.

Under Part E, a covered employee may be eligible to receive compensation for the percentage of impairment of the 

whole person that is related to a covered illness. The EEOICPA specifically requires that impairment be determined 

in accordance with the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA’s 

Guides). Impairments included in ratings are those that have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI), i.e., 

they are well-stabilized and unlikely to improve substantially with or without medical treatment. MMI is not 

required if an illness is in a terminal stage. Eligible employees receive $2,500 for each percentage point of 

impairment found to be attributable to a covered illness under Part E.

Also under Part E, covered employees may be eligible to receive wage-loss benefits. Wage-loss benefits are paid for 

each qualifying calendar year (prior to reaching normal Social Security Act retirement age) in which, as a result of 

the covered illness, an employee’s earnings fell a specific percentage below his or her average annual earnings for 

the 36-month period prior to the month in which the employee first experienced wage-loss (not including periods of 

unemployment). The EEOICPA provides that covered, eligible employees may receive $15,000 for any year in 

which they made less than 50 percent of their baseline wage, as a result of a covered illness, and $10,000 for any 

year in which they made more than 50 percent but less than 75 percent of that baseline wage. Medical benefits for 

the covered illness are also payable, in addition to monetary compensation. 

Part E survivor benefits include a basic lump sum of $125,000 where it is established that the employee was exposed 

to a toxic substance at a DOE facility and that the exposure was “at least as likely as not” a significant factor in 

causing, contributing to, or aggravating the illness and death of the employee. Part E also provides $25,000 in 

additional benefits to eligible survivors, if the deceased employee had, as of his or her normal retirement age under 

the Social Security Act, at least ten aggregate calendar years of wage loss of at least 50 percent of his or her baseline 

wage. If an employee had twenty or more such years, the additional amount paid to an eligible survivor may 

increase to $50,000. The maximum Part E compensation benefit for a survivor is $175,000.

Funding

DOL funding covers direct and indirect expenses to administer the Washington, D.C. National Office; five Final 

Adjudication Branch Offices; four DEEOIC District Offices in Seattle, Washington; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, 

Colorado; and Jacksonville, Florida; and eleven Resource Centers operated by a contractor. A private contractor 

processes medical bills to reduce overhead and to increase program efficiency. In FY 2010, DOL spent $53.2

million under Part B and $74.1 million under Part E to administer the EEOICPA. These funds supported 285 fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff for Part B and 256 FTE for Part E. Additional funds in the amount of $0.4 million under 

Part B and $0.5 million under Part E supported the Office of the Ombudsman position. Funding for the NIOSH 

radiation dose reconstruction process and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health was provided in the 

Health and Human Services appropriation.

Adjudication of Claims

In FY 2010, DEEOIC continued to receive a substantial number of new claims, creating a total of 6,510 new cases 

(10,194 claims) for living or deceased employees under Part B, and 6,566 new cases (8,677 new claims) under Part 

E. Each case represents an employee whose illness is the basis for a claim; however, a single case may contain 

multiple survivor claims. Under the EEOICPA, workers or their survivors may qualify for Part B benefits only, Part 

E benefits only, or benefits under both Parts B and E. Claims and cases under Parts B and E are counted separately
35

(that is, if a claimant is potentially eligible under both Parts, his or her claim will be counted under both Part B and 

Part E). 

Under the EEOICPA, the Secretary of HHS is responsible for adding new classes of employees to the SEC where a 

complete dose reconstruction cannot be performed by NIOSH. The Act itself initially designated certain employees 

at four sites (the three gaseous diffusion plants in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio; 

and an underground nuclear test site on Amchitka Island, Alaska) as belonging to the SEC. As of September 30, 

2010, NIOSH had added 65 additional classes of employees to the four statutory classes in the SEC which combined 

represent workers at 54 facilities. During FY 2010, NIOSH added 21 classes of employees at the following 

facilities: BWX Technologies, Inc., in Lynchburg, Virginia; St. Louis Airport Storage Site in St. Louis, Missouri; 

Downey Facility in Los Angeles County, California; University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project in Rochester, 

New York; Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio; Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico; 

Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna, New York; De Soto Avenue Facility in Los Angeles County, California; Canoga 

Avenue Facility in Los Angeles County, California; Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura 

County, California; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California; Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory in Livermore, California; Nevada Test Site in Mercury, Nevada; Westinghouse Electric Corporation in 

Bloomfield, New Jersey; Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; Hanford Engineer Works in 

Richland, Washington; Metals and Controls Corporation in Attleboro, Massachusetts; Oak Ridge Hospital in Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee; Piqua Organic Moderated Reactor in Piqua, Ohio; Norton Company in Worcester, Massachusetts; 

and Lake Ontario Ordnance Works in Niagara Falls, New York. When a new class of employees is added to the 

SEC, DOL reviews all affected cases and makes a determination on whether the employee in question meets the 

criteria for inclusion in the new class. Any previously denied claim with employment meeting the new definition is 

reopened for additional development and a new recommended decision. 

For claims filed under Part E, claims examiners use an array of tools including the Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) 

database that provides information about substances used in specific DOE facilities and the occupational illnesses 

and health effects associated with exposure to specific toxic substances. District offices also rely on DOE’s records 

that contain employees’ radiological dose records, incident or accident reports, industrial hygiene or safety records, 

personnel records, job descriptions, medical records, and other records that prove useful in determining causation. 

Additionally, a referral to a District Medical Consultant (DMC) may be required to determine a medical diagnosis, 

whether or not an illness is indicative of toxic substance exposure versus a natural medical process, whether there is 

a causal relationship between claimed illnesses and the occupational exposure history, or to evaluate an employee’s 

cause of death. DMC referrals may also be necessary for impairment evaluations and for opinions regarding the 

causal relationship between a covered illness and claimed wage loss. As of September 30, 2010, 79 board-certified 

physicians were enrolled as DMC contractors for the program. Claims may also be referred to a health physicist, 

industrial hygienist, or toxicologist for review when a scientific determination regarding the case is required. 

Recommended Decisions and Final Decisions. The DEEOIC district offices process EEOICPA claims to the 

“recommended decision” stage: for each claim, they issue a recommended decision to approve or deny the claim. 

Each recommended decision made by the district office must be reviewed by the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB), 

which ensures that the EEOICPA’s requirements, program policies, and procedures are followed and issues a final 

decision. Before making a final decision, the FAB considers any challenges brought by the claimant through either a 

review of the written record or an oral hearing. During FY 2010, the FAB conducted 1,265 reviews of the written 

record and oral hearings for 1,052 claimants. For each claim, the FAB reviews the evidence of record, the 

recommended decision, and any objections/testimony submitted by the claimant or his/her representative, and issues 

a final decision either awarding or denying benefits. The FAB may also remand a decision to the district office, if 

further development of the case is necessary. A claimant may challenge the FAB’s final decisions by requesting 

reconsideration or reopening of the claim, or may file a petition for review of a final decision with the appropriate 

U.S. District Court. 

While Part B and Part E of the EEOICPA each have unique eligibility criteria, DEEOIC usually adjudicates all 

claims for benefits under Parts B and E as a unified claim for greater efficiency, and where possible, decisions are 
36

issued that address both Parts B and E simultaneously. However, partial decisions may also be issued in cases where 

benefits under some provisions can be awarded, but claims under other provisions require further development.

During FY 2010, DEEOIC district offices issued 12,439 Part B claim-level recommended decisions and 11,197 Part 

E claim-level recommended decisions. Further, the FAB issued 10,797 Part B claim-level final decisions and 10,867 

Part E claim-level final decisions. DOL approved benefits in 53.2 percent of covered Part B claims and 58.2 percent 

of covered Part E claims that were issued a final decision during FY 2010. Covered applications are those claims 

which met the basic eligibility requirements of covered employment and a covered occupational illness under Part B, 

or for covered employment and survivorship under Part E.

Outreach Activities

DEEOIC’s staff continues to sponsor outreach activities to disseminate information about EEOICPA benefits and to 

provide one-on-one assistance to claimants in applying for benefits.

Resource center and district office personnel supported the collaborative outreach efforts led by DEEOIC’s Branch 

of Outreach and Technical Assistance (BOTA) in the national office. During FY 2010, as additional classes of 

employees were added by the Secretary of HHS to the SEC, DOL sponsored nine town hall meetings and traveling 

resource centers in Ronkonkoma, New York; Kennewick, Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; Simi Valley, Livermore, 

and Emeryville, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Lynchburg, Virginia. These public events presented details 

about new SEC classes at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Hanford, Nevada Test Site, Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, BWX Technologies, Inc., and Downey and De Soto Avenue facilities. Nearly 1,000 

individuals attended these town hall meetings and traveling resource centers, and as a result of these meetings 

resource center staff submitted 314 new claims to DOL for adjudication. Further, in response to large attendance at 

past town hall meetings held in the Navajo Nation, DEEOIC continues to conduct monthly meetings in Shiprock, 

New Mexico, and Kayenta, Arizona, to provide in-person assistance to Navajo and other EEOICPA claimants.

Working with DOE’s Former Worker Medical Screening Program, HHS and the Office of the Ombudsman, 

DEEOIC staff continued to participate in a joint outreach task group to provide information and clarification 

regarding the EEOICPA to former nuclear weapons workers and their families. During FY 2010, DEEOIC staff 

attended joint outreach task-group-sponsored town hall meetings in Amarillo, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Santa Fe 

and Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Idaho Falls, Idaho. Further, at the request of the Office of the Ombudsman, the 

DEEOIC national office, district office, and resource center staff continued to participate in all Ombudsman 

sponsored outreach initiatives by providing claim status updates to claimants, taking new claims, and answering 

questions as needed. 

Other examples of DEEOIC outreach activities conducted during FY 2010 include meetings with local governments 

and chambers of commerce, presentations to personnel at covered facilities and unions, and other community 

initiatives. Additionally, during FY 2010 the district offices received 160,347 phone calls and the FAB received 

6,229 phone calls. Nearly all calls that required a return call were returned within two business days.

Services to Claimants

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, and Justice provide assistance to current and 

potential claimants and surviving family members, to help them understand the EEOICPA and claimants’ rights and 

obligations under the program. DOL has implemented several strategies to assist workers and survivors in filing 

claims, collecting evidence to support claims, and understanding the adjudication process from start to finish:

Website. DEEOIC’s website provides important information about the statute and regulations governing Parts B 

and E of the EEOICPA, and gives claimants access to brochures, claim forms, and electronic filing of claims. 
37

During FY 2010, twenty-three policy bulletins and four final circulars concerning the administration of the 

EEOICPA were posted to the site. Further, the website also provides DEEOIC’s Procedure Manual; the locations 

and times of town hall meetings; district office and resource center locations and contact numbers; press releases; 

and medical provider enrollment information. Claimants can also view DEEOIC and NIOSH weekly web statistics; 

payment statistics at the national, state, and facility levels; and the searchable database of DEEOIC final decisions. 

The website also provides links to DOE, DOJ, and NIOSH’s websites and toll-free numbers where additional 

information and assistance can be obtained.

During FY 2010, in an effort to be as accessible and transparent as possible to the claimant community, the DEEOIC 

continued to add new information to its website, providing the public with additional information concerning 

DEEOIC’s administration of the EEOICPA. This information included statistical information displaying the overall 

average adjudication time for certain types of claims, including those claims requiring a NIOSH dose reconstruction; 

graphs showing DEEOIC performance in meeting its Government Performance Results Act goals; and additional 

statistical graphs showing the amount of compensation paid over time at various facilities covered under the 

EEOICPA including the Ames Laboratory, General Atomics, Hanford, Iowa Ordnance Plant, Oak Ridge Gaseous 

Diffusion Plant (K-25), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mallinckrodt 

Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant, Nevada Test Site, Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation 

(Apollo), Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Rocky Flats Plant, S-50 Oak 

Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (X-10), and the Y-12 Plant. 

Unified Procedure Manual. During FY 2010, the DEEOIC revised and updated the program’s procedure manual 

used by DEEOIC claims staff to adjudicate claims. The new Unified Procedure Manual, published on February 26, 

2010, replaced the Part B and Part E Procedure Manuals, and provides an overview of the DEEOIC program and 

current authorized policies and procedures used in the processing and adjudication of claims under the EEOICPA. 

Further, the EEOICPA Procedure Manual incorporates DEEOIC policy bulletins and circulars, which are currently 

posted on the DEEOIC website. 

Role of Resource Centers. DEEOIC’s network of Resource Centers (RCs) at major DOE sites provides an initial 

point-of-contact for workers interested in the program and in-person and toll-free telephone-based assistance to 

individuals filing claims under the EEOICPA. In FY 2010, the RC contractor had 64 employees at 11 sites to help 

claimants complete necessary claim forms and gather documentation that can support their claims. 

The RC’s assist with initial claim-filing and Part E occupational history development, and forwards all claims and 

associated documentation to the appropriate district offices. During FY 2010, the RCs helped claimants file 12,906 

claims, received more than 95,000 telephone calls, conducted over 64,000 follow-up actions with claimants, and 

completed 6,800 occupational history interviews. RC staff also supported DEEOIC’s town hall meetings and 

traveling resource center in locations around the country. 

The RC staff also continued to assist claimants with the medical bill payment process, preparation of requests for 

pre-authorized medical travel, and submission of claims for reimbursement related to medical travel. During FY 

2010, the RC staff made approximately 32,000 contacts related to medical bills. In addition, RC staff enrolled over 

300 new medical providers into the program.

Center for Construction Research and Training. The Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR), 

formerly called the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights, continues its work under contract with the DEEOIC. The 

CPWR has been tasked with researching and providing employment information for construction/trade workers (who 

worked at DOE, AWE, or beryllium vendor facilities) in cases where DOL has been unable to obtain reliable 

information through other available resources. In FY 2010, CPWR provided responses to 1,030 requests for 

information. CPWR also maintains a website-accessible database that identifies and confirms the existence of 

contractual relationships between contractor and subcontractor employers and certain covered facilities. This 

database is available to DEEOIC claims examiners.
38

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) Database. In FY 2010, DEEOIC continued to enhance its database of “site 

exposure matrices” to assist claims examiners in determining the types of chemicals and toxic substances that existed 

at the major DOE facilities, easing claimants’ evidentiary burdens and speeding the claims process. The SEM 

project team added information on two new DOE sites and updated existing SEM matrices of 38 DOE sites during 

FY 2010. A total of 89 new toxic substances were added to the SEM database as a result of public and worker input. 

As of September 30, 2010, SEM housed information on 9,588 toxic substances/chemicals used at 99 DOE sites, 

4,170 uranium mines, 47 uranium mills, and 17 uranium ore buying stations covered under the EEOICPA.

DOL continued to provide funding to support further development and expansion of the National Library of 

Medicine (NLM) Haz-Map Occupational Health Database. This database contains information about the possible 

effects of exposure to hazardous agents that assists DOL in developing and adjudicating claims filed under Part E of 

EEOICPA, and relieves claimants of some of the burden of proof in their claims. The funding provided in FY 2010 

allowed NLM to complete 1,804 new or updated health/chemical profiles for its Haz-Map database. 

DOL launched an expanded SEM website during FY 2010 to provide the public the same detailed SEM database 

information used by DEEOIC claims examiners for DOE and RECA Section 5 facilities. Information on all but six 

DOE sites was posted on the website as of the end of FY 2010. DOE requires that information be reviewed and 

approved for release prior to posting on the public SEM website. Expanded data for the remaining six sites is now 

under review by DOE; general data on toxic materials at those facilities also remains available. 

Database Systems. DEEOIC’s Branch of Automated Data Processing Systems (BAS) is responsible for providing 

DEEOIC’s internal and external customers an entire array of secure and reliable computer services and support.

This includes the support of the Energy Case Management System (ECMS) which serves as a repository for data 

related to claims adjudication activities and compensation benefits. New software releases delivered in FY 2010 

provided an upgrade to facilitate the medical eligibility file transfer process and an upgrade to the payment process 

required for terminal claimants. These enhancements ensure the effectiveness of administering compensation 

benefits to claimants to once again meet and exceed strategic and operational goals. 

DEEOIC is currently developing an integrated, modernized and expanded mission-critical case management system. 

The new unified system will replace the separate Part B and Part E management systems that have supported 

DEEOIC’s users since Part B (2001) and Part E’s (2005) inception. 

Ombudsman. Under the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 42 U.S.C. § 7385s15, signed into law on October 28, 2004, an Office of the Ombudsman was created for a period of three years, to 

provide information to claimants, potential claimants, and other interested parties on the benefits available under Part 

E of the EEOICPA and how to obtain those benefits. In January 2008, the National Defense Authorization Act 

of 2008 extended the term of this office to October 28, 2012; on October 28, 2009, the National Defense 

Authorization Act of 2009 expanded the authority of the Office to also include Part B of the EEOICPA. The Office 

of the Ombudsman, within the Department of Labor but independent from OWCP, reports annually to Congress 

concerning complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance received during the calendar year covered by the 

report. DEEOIC continues to work directly with the Ombudsman’s office to promptly resolve any issues and 

concerns stemming from the Ombudsman’s findings.

Government Performance Results Act

DOL is committed to measuring its outcomes and maintaining accountability for achieving the fundamental goals of 

the EEOICPA. High performance standards, focusing on moving EEOICPA claims rapidly through the initial and 

secondary adjudication stages, have been established, and DOL has maintained a strong record of meeting its key 

performance goals under the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA).

DEEOIC’s three indicators achieved under DOL’s GPRA goal to “provide good jobs for everyone through income 

maintenance” were as follows:
39

• In FY 2007, DEEOIC began to measure average days for completion of initial processing of claims, as that 

measure is a good indicator of overall effectiveness in delivering initial services to claimants. During FY 2009, 

a goal of 160 days was set for Part B claims and DEEOIC exceeded this goal by taking an average of 113 days 

to process initial claims under Part B. In FY 2010, a goal of 120 days was set, and DEEOIC exceeded this goal 

by taking an average of only 97 days to process initial claims under Part B of the EEOICPA during FY 2010.

• During FY 2009, 159 days on average were needed to process initial Part E claims. In FY 2010, a target of 160 

days was set. Again, DEEOIC exceeded its goal, as 125 days on average were needed to process initial claims 

under Part E of the EEOICPA during FY 2010. These results reflect DEEOIC’s success in clearing the backlog 

of older claims such that a “steady state” processing of current cases is now the norm.

• Timely processing also extends to final decisions issued by DEEOIC’s FAB. The timeliness standards for both 

Part B and Part E claims are to complete final decisions within 180 days where there is a hearing and within 75 

days where there is no hearing. In the processing of Part B and Part E final decisions through the efforts of the 

FAB, 97 percent of Part B and Part E decisions in FY 2010 were within the program standards, in excess of the 

goal of 89 percent.

Central Medical Bill Processing

The OWCP central bill processing service continued to provide a high level of service to eligible claimants and 

providers in FY 2010. Timely and accurate medical bill processing is critical in the administration of the EEOICPA. 

In FY 2010, DEEOIC avoided $9.7 million in costs during the year due to further improvements in the editing of 

bills. These savings were achieved without impacting on services to claimants.

By the end of FY 2010, the bill processing vendor had processed 355,000 EEOICPA bills and handled 44,604 

telephone calls. Authorizations for medical treatment were processed in an average of 1.1 workdays and 99.4 

percent of bills were processed within 28 days. Enrollment of 3,378 new providers brought the total of enrolled 

providers for EEOICPA services to 123,833.

Program Evaluation 

In FY 2010 DEEOIC hired a contractor to conduct a customer service satisfaction survey to measure the perceptions 

of claimants who had filed a claim under the EEOICPA. Claimants who had been through the claims process and 

received a final decision to award or deny compensation and benefits were asked to assess their satisfaction with the 

service they received as part of the claims process. DEEOIC mailed surveys to 3,070 claimants and achieved a 

response rate of 30.6 percent with 865 respondents. Of the 865 people completing the survey, 588 respondents 

provided additional feedback in the form of written comments. An analysis of the survey was completed on June 29, 

2010. The survey indicated that 97 percent of individuals who were awarded benefits and 61 percent of those denied 

benefits would recommend the program to a friend. DEEOIC will analyze the full results of the survey to further 

enhance internal and external processes and to improve service to claimants and delivery of benefits.

In July 2010, DEEOIC hired a new Medical Director, who was tasked with assembling an improved network of 

recognized medical specialists to assist in the review of complex EEOICPA cases. The Medical Director is 

reviewing the process utilized by DEEOIC with respect to obtaining DMC opinions for adjudication of cases, 

reviewing the qualifications of DMC’s who work with DEEOIC, and evaluating DMC reports for consistency and 

quality. DEEOIC is also reinstituting quarterly DMC teleconferences, which address procedural and medical issues, 

new guidance, and other issues of common interest to the DMCs.
40

Statutory Activity

On October 28, 2009, § 7385s-15 of EEOICPA was amended for the second time by § 3142(a) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2190, 2715-16. These amendments 

expanded the scope of the duties assigned to the Office of the Ombudsman in § 7385s-15, which prior to these 

amendments was limited to Part E of EEOICPA, to also include Part B.

Litigation

DEEOIC strives in every case to administer the Energy program in accordance with the law and governing 

regulations. During FY 2010, two U.S. District Courts published decisions in cases arising under Part E of 

EEOICPA. Important points from these cases are summarized below.

Coordination of Part E Benefits with State Workers’ Compensation Benefits. In Meridieth v. Chao, 723 

F.Supp.2d 1044 (E.D. Tenn. 2010), a beneficiary under Part E filed a petition seeking review of a final decision that 

coordinated his Part E benefits with a payment he had received to settle his state workers’ compensation claim for 

the same covered illness, thereby reducing the amount of his Part E benefits. The plaintiff argued that he should be 

exempt from the required coordination by operation of 20 C.F.R. § 30.626(c)(3), which states that “coordination of 

benefits will not occur if the beneficiary under a state workers’ compensation program receives state workers’ 

compensation benefits for both a covered and a non-covered illness arising out of and in the course of the same 

work-related incident.” The plaintiff based his argument on language used in the state court order accepting the 

settlement of his state workers’ compensation claim that referred to “any non-malignant respiratory injury” and the 

fact that he had been diagnosed with a non-malignant lung condition that DEEOIC did not accept as a “covered 

illness” under Part E. The court reviewed both the settlement and the medical evidence in the file in depth, and 

concluded that the final decision to coordinate the plaintiff’s Part E benefits with the settlement proceeds of his state 

workers’ compensation claim was not “arbitrary and capricious” on two different grounds. First, the court agreed 

that the “any non-malignant respiratory injury” language in the state court order did not mean that the plaintiff’s state 

workers’ compensation claim was for any condition other than the “covered illness” also accepted by DEEOIC. And 

second, the court held that even if his state workers’ compensation settlement was for both his “covered illness” and

a non-covered illness, the plaintiff was not exempt from having his Part E benefits coordinated under 20 C.F.R. § 

30.626(c)(3) because the medical evidence established that the non-covered illness at issue, chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease, did not arise “out of and in the course of the same work-related incident” that led to his “covered 

illness” of asbestosis, i.e., his employment-related exposure to asbestos.

Wage-loss Benefits. In Trego v. U.S. Department of Labor, 681 F.Supp.2d 894 (E.D. Tenn. 2009), the plaintiff 

filed a petition seeking court review of DEEOIC’s final decision denying him wage-loss benefits under Part E of 

EEOICPA. In that decision, DEEOIC had awarded him medical benefits for his covered illness of chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but had denied the plaintiff’s request for wage-loss benefits because the 

evidence failed to establish that he suffered wage-loss as a result of his covered illness. The plaintiff argued that his 

COPD had caused him to lose wages at Y-12, but the court found that the evidence established he lost his job at Y12 because of a reduction-in-force (RIF), not because of his COPD. The plaintiff also argued that he suffered wageloss because his COPD prevented him from securing other employment after the RIF. He argued that his wageearning capacity, i.e., his potential to earn wages, was diminished because of his COPD. The court found that 

EEOICPA does not provide benefits for a loss of capacity to earn potential wages but, instead, provides wage-loss 

benefits only when the covered illness results in a reduction in actual wages, and in doing so distinguished 

EEOICPA from other federal statutes that allow consideration of an employee’s wage-earning capacity in 

determining compensation, such as the FECA and the LHWCA.
41

1 Part E became effective during FY 2005 (October 28, 2004).

2 Includes Department of Labor expenditures only; beginning in FY 2009, funding for the Department of Health and 

Human Services responsibilities under the EEOICPA are provided for in that agency’s appropriation. During FY 

2010, funding of $0.4 million for Part B and $0.5 million for Part E ($0.8 million in FY 2009 under Part E) for the 

Office of the Ombudsman is excluded.

3 Excludes payments made by DOL for Department of Justice (DOJ) Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) 

Section 5 claims. DOL serves as a pass through and utilizes the compensation fund established under EEOICPA for

DOJ’s payments of $100,000 to qualifying Section 5 RECA claimants as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 7384u(d). 

These payments totaled $36.3 million in FY 2009 and $29.1 million in FY 2010, respectively.

4 Part B medical payments represent payments made for cases accepted under both Part B and Part E. Part E medical 

payments represent payments made for Part E only.

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS

COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT

Part B Part E 1

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2009 FY 2010

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 316 285 281 256

Administrative Expenditures 2 $50.6 M $53.2 M $65.2 M $74.1 M

Claims Created 7,179 10,194 7,509 8,677

Recommended Decisions (Covered Applications) 10,979 12,439 11,726 11,197

Final Decisions (Covered Applications) 11,606 10,797 11,889 10,867

Number of Claims Approved (Final) 5,447 5,748 6,879 6,330

Total Lump Sum Compensation Payments 3 $437.5 M $448.7 M $428.7 M $381.0 M

Number of Medical Bill Payments 199,437 262,417 16,057 25,957

Total Medical Payments 4 $115.7 M $200.5 M $4.9 M $11.8 M
42

Appendix

Page

A. FECA Tables A1 - A4 ...................................................................................43

B. Black Lung Tables B1 - B6...........................................................................47

C. LHWCA Tables C1 - C5 ...............................................................................53

D. EEOICPA Tables D1 – D5............................................................................58

Note: Unless otherwise stated, the financial information in the appendix tables below may differ from what is 

reported in the Department of Labor’s Consolidated Financial Statement. These differences are due to 

accrual versus cash basis financial reporting requirements and adjustments made during statement 

compilation.
 Table A-1

 Federal Employees' Compensation Rolls, FY 2001 - FY 2010

 (Cases at End-of-Year)

 Fiscal Year

 Roll Type 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Periodic Roll 56,133 56,751 58,621 57,817 60,709 50,362 51,125 50,263 49,672 49,517

 Long-Term Disability 50,409 51,092 53,099 52,367 R 55,257 44,910 R 46,258 45,604 45,162 45,263

 Death 5,724 5,659 5,522 5,450 5,452 5,452 R 4,867 4,659 4,510 4,254

R Revised
 Table A-2

 Federal Employees' Compensation Program

Summary of Claims Activity, FY 2001 - FY 2010

 Fiscal Year

 Claim Activity 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

INCOMING CASES

Cases Created 165,915 158,118 168,174 162,965 151,690 139,874 134,360 134,013 129,690 127,526

Traumatic 137,877 132,250 142,325 138,521 129,427 119,082 114,592 115,715 112,640 111,121

 No Lost Time 86,402 80,439 84,368 80,018 74,071 67,127 64,896 66,812 64,130 R 61,067

 Lost Time 51,475 51,811 57,957 58,503 55,356 51,955 49,696 48,903 48,510 R 50,054

Occupational Disease 27,869 25,739 25,747 24,320 22,114 20,592 19,633 18,190 16,951 16,300

Fatal Cases 169 129 102 124 149 200 135 108 99 105

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 23,386 23,193 24,245 24,189 21,455 19,819 19,104 19,187 18,808 19,861

HEARINGS AND REVIEW

Total Requests for Hearing 6,875 6,820 6,751 8,132 6,757 6,241 6,556 6,584 6,438 6,501

Total Hearing Dispositions 6,599 6,272 6,743 7,682 6,961 7,424 7,581 6,789 7,085 6,758

R Revised
 Table A-3

 Federal Employees' Compensation Program Obligations, FY 2001 - FY 2010

 ($ thousands)

 Fiscal Year

 Type of Obligation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Obligations $2,308,595 $2,418,364 $2,475,108 $2,568,390 $2,602,815 $2,553,930 $2,707,196 $2,800,284 $2,874,754 $3,015,333

 Total Benefits 2,199,276 2,307,942 2,345,472 2,434,609 2,476,479 2,418,796 2,563,055 2,657,634 2,732,577 2,857,806

 Compensation Benefits 1,453,740 1,509,275 1,556,845 1,600,501 1,664,405 1,621,357 1,684,248 1,736,649 1,747,650 1,807,450

 Medical Benefits 617,414 667,797 658,121 703,571 672,006 668,205 743,124 781,594 847,373 912,796

 Survivor Benefits 128,122 130,870 130,506 130,537 140,068 129,234 135,683 139,391 137,554 137,560

 Total Administrative Expenditures 109,319 110,422 129,636 133,781 126,336 135,134 144,141 142,650 142,177 157,527

 Salaries and Expenses 78,971 81,210 86,358 86,253 86,811 88,435 90,113 89,416 90,049 98,116

 Fair Share 30,348 29,212 43,278 47,528 39,525 46,699 54,028 53,234 52,128 59,411
 Table A-4

 Federal Employees' Compensation Program Chargeback Costs, by Major Federal Agency

 CBY 2001 - CBY 2010

 ($ thousands)

 Chargeback Year 1/

 Federal Agency 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Costs $2,129,097 $2,219,448 $2,323,288 $2,339,782 $2,334,194 $2,440,711 $2,494,096 $2,572,864 $2,669,115 $2,697,107

 U.S. Postal Service 720,518 785,199 846,876 852,945 840,141 884,078 924,138 978,629 1,055,221 1,101,200

 Department of the Navy 246,881 248,250 245,461 245,145 237,791 244,318 244,037 242,440 240,004 234,251

 Department of Veterans Affairs 145,909 151,612 157,315 155,391 156,170 164,091 166,087 175,637 179,922 182,212

 Department of the Army 169,219 174,832 181,298 177,250 174,660 180,248 178,993 179,503 181,775 177,236

 Department of Homeland Security N/A N/A 83,975 121,089 138,342 156,734 158,529 161,070 164,611 160,502

 Department of the Air Force 134,106 132,538 135,509 129,229 124,516 126,663 130,298 131,059 131,301 129,323

 Department of Justice 91,197 95,620 66,131 74,011 80,090 89,156 94,395 98,825 104,772 104,573

 Department of Transportation 99,556 101,716 94,682 92,659 92,687 92,830 93,609 97,931 99,251 97,687

 Department of Agriculture 66,750 69,563 72,312 69,245 68,681 70,185 70,802 72,869 73,670 72,876

 Department of Defense 64,761 63,888 65,429 63,816 62,996 65,460 62,630 60,737 63,051 63,581

 All Other Agencies 390,201 396,230 374,299 359,003 358,120 366,948 370,578 374,164 375,537 373,666

1/ A year for chargeback purposes is from July 1 through June 30.
 Table B-1

 Part C Black Lung Claims Adjudications at the

 District Director Level, FY 2010

Type of PDO's Approval

Claim Issued 1/ Rate

TRUST FUND 522

 Approved 77 14.75%

 Denied 445

RESPONSIBLE OPERATORS 3,187

 Approved 432 13.56%

 Denied 2,755

TOTAL DECISIONS 3,709

 Total Approved 509 13.72%

 Total Denied 3,200

1/ PDO is "Proposed Decision and Order".
 Table B-2

 Distribution of Part C Black Lung Claims and Disbursements, by State, FY 2010

 Total Claims MBO Total Benefits

State Received 1/ Claims 2/ In Payment 3/ ($ 000) 4/

Alabama 34,984 24 664 $5,522

Alaska 153 0 9 75

Arizona 2,126 4 100 832

Arkansas 3,852 3 120 998

California 6,488 4 165 1,372

Colorado 7,109 6 307 2,553

Connecticut 1,003 0 44 366

Delaware 786 1 42 349

District of Columbia 286 0 9 75

Florida 12,017 32 594 4,940

Georgia 1,702 3 142 1,181

Hawaii 16 0 1 8

Idaho 252 0 12 100

Illinois 31,748 22 781 6,495

Indiana 18,161 19 565 4,698

Iowa 5,155 2 144 1,197

Kansas 2,183 1 36 299

Kentucky 96,610 469 4,033 33,538

Louisiana 354 0 11 91

Maine 45 0 2 16

Maryland 6,708 12 255 2,121

Massachusetts 245 0 15 125

Michigan 10,534 9 291 2,420

Minnesota 147 1 5 42

Mississippi 368 1 18 150

Missouri 4,668 0 125 1,039

Montana 860 2 22 183

Nebraska 130 0 2 17

Nevada 444 1 30 249

New Hampshire 27 0 4 33

New Jersey 4,314 5 191 1,588

New Mexico 2,445 1 81 674

New York 4,041 2 136 1,131

North Carolina 3,654 18 274 2,279

North Dakota 159 0 3 25

Ohio 54,473 50 1,936 16,099

Oklahoma 3,807 4 97 807

Oregon 629 0 19 158

Pennsylvania 138,148 296 7,383 61,395

Rhode Island 40 0 2 17

South Carolina 985 5 103 857

South Dakota 53 0 4 33

Tennessee 21,785 67 812 6,752

Texas 1,765 5 84 699

Utah 4,216 7 180 1,497

Vermont 50 0 4 33

Virginia 45,779 274 2,890 24,033

Washington 1,592 2 45 374

West Virginia 115,821 444 5,741 47,741

Wisconsin 458 0 19 158

Wyoming 2,640 0 109 906

All Other 450 1 10 83

TOTAL 656,465 1,797 28,671 $238,423

1/ All filings since July 1, 1973, including terminated and nonapproved claims.

2/ Active Medical Benefits Only (MBO) claims as of 9/30/10.

3/ Active claims in payment status, excluding MBO claims, as of 9/30/10.

4/ Disbursements of income and medical benefits for all claims, including claims paid by the Trust Fund and claims in

 interim pay status.

Note: Data in column no. 1 may not be consistent with changes from previous years due to a change in computer systems.
Table B-3

 Part C Black Lung Claims, by Class of Beneficiary, FY 2001 - FY 2010 1/

 Number of Beneficiaries 2/

 Class of Beneficiary 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Primary Beneficiaries:

 Miners 18,248 16,395 14,773 13,398 12,012 10,857 9,744 8,654 7,699 6,967

 Widows 35,660 34,236 32,615 30,810 29,110 27,366 25,556 23,690 21,913 20,495

 Others 1,467 1,221 1,238 1,247 1,248 1,258 1,241 1,230 1,214 1,209

 TOTAL PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES 55,375 51,852 48,626 45,455 42,370 39,481 36,541 33,574 30,826 28,671

Dependents of Primary Beneficiaries:

 Dependents of Miners 13,924 12,432 11,131 10,020 9,004 8,088 7,205 6,442 5,726 5,202

 Dependents of Widows 1,123 1,077 1,052 1,006 944 874 840 777 723 681

 Dependents of Others 108 386 353 238 213 146 140 132 122 113

 TOTAL DEPENDENTS 15,155 13,895 12,536 11,264 10,161 9,108 8,185 7,351 6,571 5,996

TOTAL, ALL BENEFICIARIES 70,530 65,747 61,162 56,719 52,531 48,589 44,726 40,925 37,397 34,667

1/ As of September 30 of each year.

2/ Active claims, including those paid by a RMO, cases paid by the Trust Fund, cases in interim pay status, cases that are being offset due to concurrent Federal or state benefits, and

 cases that have been temporarily suspended. Does not include MBO beneficiaries.
Table B-4

Department of Labor Part C Black Lung Benefits Program Obligations, FY 2001 - FY 2010

($ thousands)

 Fiscal Year

 Type of Obligation 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Obligations $1,016,994 $1,034,096 $1,046,303 $1,053,246 $1,061,698 $1,060,006 $1,068,295 $1,070,958 $7,152,627 $661,798

 Total Benefits 1/ 396,928 384,234 370,389 346,864 329,933 307,067 291,310 273,232 254,987 238,423

 Income Benefits 2/ 336,813 320,039 307,371 292,555 279,965 265,365 252,020 235,347 221,298 207,801

 Medical Benefits 3/ 60,116 64,196 63,018 54,309 49,968 41,702 39,290 37,885 33,689 30,622

 Administrative Costs 4/ 52,252 54,273 55,332 55,803 56,872 57,975 59,772 58,257 57,712 58,618

 Interest Charges 5/ 567,814 595,589 620,582 650,579 674,894 694,964 717,214 739,469 0 0

 Bond Payments 6/ 341,939 364,757

 Principal 337,472 353,424

 Interest 4,467 11,333

Repayable Advances 7/ 505,000 465,000 525,000 497,000 446,000 445,000 426,000 426,000 6,497,989 60,000

Cumulative Debt 8/ 7,253,557 7,718,557 8,243,557 8,740,557 9,186,557 9,631,557 10,057,557 10,483,557 6,370,580 6,289,746

 Principal 6,158,245 5,864,821

 Capitalized Interest 212,335 424,925

1/ Excludes collections from responsible mine operators for benefits paid by Trust Fund on an interim basis, refunds for OWCP administrative costs paid, and other miscellaneous reimbursements.

2/ Monthly and retroactive benefit payments.

3/ Includes diagnostic and treatment benefits, and reimbursements to the UMWA Health and Retirement Funds.

4/ Administrative costs include support for DCMWC, Office of the Inspector General, Office of the Solicitor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, and Benefits Review Board within DOL, and reimbursements to the Department of Treasury and the Social Security

 Administration.

5/ Interest charges on repayable advances to the Trust Fund from the Department of Treasury.

6/ Scheduled repayments of principal and interest on zero-coupon bonds issued to refinance the BLDTF debt as mandated under the Emergecy Economic Statbilization Act of 2008 (EESA).

7/ Advances from the Department of Treasury. FY 2009 is a one-time non-repayable appropriation under the EESA. Beginning in FY 2010, EESA classifies these advances as one-year obligations that must be repaid to the Treasury.

8/ Shows the cumulative debt of the Trust Fund to the Department of Treasury. Starting in FY 2009, this debt includes principal and capitalized loan interest related to the zero-coupon bonds issued under EESA and payable to the Bureau of Public Debt.

Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
Table B-5

Monthly Part C Black Lung Benefit Rates, 1973 - 2010

 Benefit Rates by Type of Beneficiary 

Claimant and Claimant and Claimant and 3 or

 Period Claimant 1 Dependent 2 Dependents More Dependents

7/1/73-9/30/73 $169.80 $254.70 $297.10 $339.50

10/1/73-9/30/74 177.60 266.40 310.80 355.20

10/1/74-9/30/75 187.40 281.10 328.00 374.80

10/1/75-9/30/76 196.80 295.20 344.40 393.50

10/1/76-9/30/77 205.40 308.10 359.50 410.80

10/1/77-9/30/78 219.90 329.80 384.80 439.70

10/1/78-9/30/79 232.00 348.00 405.90 463.90

10/1/79-9/30/80 254.00 381.00 444.50 508.00

10/1/80-9/30/81 279.80 419.60 489.60 559.50

10/1/81-9/30/82 293.20 439.80 513.10 586.40

10/1/82-12/31/83 304.90 457.30 533.60 609.80

1/1/84-12/31/84 1/ 317.10 475.60 554.90 634.20

1/1/85-12/31/86 328.20 492.30 574.30 656.40

1/1/87-12/31/87 338.00 507.00 591.50 676.00

1/1/88-12/31/88 344.80 517.20 603.40 689.60

1/1/89-12/31/89 358.90 538.30 628.10 717.80

1/1/90-12/31/90 371.80 557.70 650.60 743.60

1/1/91-12/31/91 387.10 580.60 677.40 774.10

1/1/92-12/31/92 403.30 605.00 705.80 806.60

1/1/93-12/31/93 418.20 627.30 731.90 836.40

1/1/94-12/31/94 427.40 641.10 748.00 854.80

1/1/95-12/31/95 427.40 641.10 748.00 854.80

1/1/96-12/31/96 435.10 652.70 761.50 870.20

1/1/97-12/31/97 445.10 667.70 779.00 890.20

1/1/98-12/31/98 455.40 683.10 796.90 910.70

1/1/99-12/31/99 469.50 704.30 821.60 939.00

1/1/00-12/31/00 487.40 731.00 852.80 974.70

1/1/01-12/31/01 500.50 750.80 875.90 1,001.00

1/1/02-12/31/02 518.50 777.80 907.40 1,037.00

1/1/03-12/31/03 534.60 801.90 935.50 1,069.20

1/1/04-12/31/04 549.00 823.50 960.80 1,098.00

1/1/05-12/31/05 562.80 844.10 984.80 1,125.50

1/1/06-12/31/06 574.60 861.80 1005.50 1,149.10

1/1/07-12/31/07 584.40 876.50 1022.60 1,168.70

1/1/08-12/31/08 599.00 898.40 1048.10 1,197.90

1/1/09-12/31/09 616.30 924.50 1078.50 1,232.60

1/1/10-12/31/10 625.60 938.30 1094.70 1,251.10

1/ These benefit rates include the additional one-half percent increase that was granted retroactive to January 1, 1984. The rates in effect prior to

 the retroactive payments (1/1/84 through 6/30/84) were: $315.60 for a claimant only; $473.30 for a claimant and 1 dependent; $552.20 for a claimant

 and 2 dependents; and, $631.10 for a claimant and 3 or more dependents.
Table B-6

 Funding and Disbursements of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, FY 2010

 ($ thousands)

 Funding Disbursements

Coal Excise Treasury Income Medical Benefits Total Admin. Interest on Bond

 Month Tax Revenue Advances Reimburse. 1/ Total Benefits 2/ Diagnostic Treatment 3/ Benefits Costs Advances Payments 4/ Total

October 2009 $9,910 $0 $933 $10,843 $17,982 $331 $1,692 $20,005 $4,045 $0 $0 $24,050

November 2009 60,127 0 609 60,736 17,378 309 1,826 19,514 4,044 0 0 23,557

December 2009 55,054 0 707 55,761 17,320 319 2,132 19,772 3,993 0 0 23,765

January 2010 53,958 0 427 54,385 17,039 235 1,874 19,148 5,755 0 0 24,903

February 2010 47,391 0 910 48,301 17,272 297 2,077 19,647 5,097 0 0 24,744

March 2010 50,215 0 961 51,176 17,223 429 2,892 20,545 5,101 0 0 25,646

April 2010 57,631 0 799 58,430 17,547 282 2,139 19,968 5,100 0 0 25,068

May 2010 30,753 0 781 31,534 17,135 312 2,267 19,714 5,098 0 0 24,812

June 2010 56,926 0 872 57,798 17,531 603 2,655 20,789 5,093 0 0 25,882

July 2010 53,905 0 1,224 55,129 17,184 370 2,198 19,753 5,097 0 0 24,850

August 2010 40,188 0 1,063 41,251 17,221 391 1,881 19,493 5,097 0 0 24,590

September 2010 78,745 60,000 769 139,514 16,968 567 2,541 20,076 5,097 0 364,757 389,930

TOTALS $594,803 $60,000 $10,054 $664,857 $207,801 $4,446 $26,176 $238,423 $58,618 0 $364,757 $661,798

1/ Reimbursements include collections from RMOs, and fines, penalties, and interest.

2/ Includes monthly and retroactive benefit payments.

3/ Treatment expenditures include reimbursements to the United Mine Workers' Health and Retirement Funds.

4/ Repayment of principal and interest on principal for the zero-coupon bonds issued to refinance the BLDTF debt under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.
Table C-1

 Total Industry Compensation and Benefit Payments Under LHWCA 1/

 CY 2000 - CY 2009 2/

($ thousands)

 Calendar Year

 Payments By: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

 Self-Insured 

 Employers $278,952 $307,708 $310,940 $309,843 $322,520 $325,694 $368,744 $325,544 $340,336 $388,088

 Insurance Carriers 249,671 236,726 246,603 262,753 278,887 325,027 367,625 456,773 504,348 551,716

Total Payments $528,623 $544,434 $557,543 $572,596 $601,407 $650,721 $736,369 $782,317 $844,684 $939,804

1/ Includes disability compensation and medical benefit payments under LHWCA, DCCA, and all other extensions to the Act.

2/ Industry payments are reported to the Department of Labor on a calendar year basis.
 Table C-2

 National Average Weekly Wage (NAWW) and Corresponding Maximum

 and Minimum Compensation Rates and Annual Adjustments Pursuant

 to Sections 6(b), 9(e), and 10(f) of LHWCA

Maximum Minimum Annual Adjustment

Period NAWW Payable Payable (% Increase in NAWW)

11/26/72-9/30/73 $131.80 $167.00 $65.90 --

10/01/73-9/30/74 140.26 210.54 70.18 6.49

10/01/74-9/30/75 149.10 261.00 74.57 6.26

10/01/75-9/30/76 159.20 318.38 79.60 6.74

10/01/76-9/30/77 171.28 342.54 85.64 7.59

10/01/77-9/30/78 183.61 367.22 91.81 7.21

10/01/78-9/30/79 198.39 396.78 99.20 8.05

10/01/79-9/30/80 213.13 426.26 106.57 7.43

10/01/80-9/30/81 228.12 456.24 114.06 7.03

10/01/81-9/30/82 248.35 496.70 124.18 8.87

10/01/82-9/30/83 262.35 524.70 131.18 5.64

10/01/83-9/30/84 274.17 548.34 1/ 137.09 4.51

10/01/84-9/30/85 289.83 579.66 144.92 5.71 2/

10/01/85-9/30/86 297.62 595.24 148.81 2.69

10/01/86-9/30/87 302.66 605.32 151.33 1.69

10/01/87-9/30/88 308.48 616.96 154.24 1.92

10/01/88-9/30/89 318.12 636.24 159.06 3.13

10/01/89-9/30/90 330.31 660.62 165.16 3.83

10/01/90-9/30/91 341.07 682.14 170.54 3.26

10/01/91-9/30/92 349.98 699.96 174.99 2.61

10/01/92-9/30/93 360.57 721.14 180.29 3.03

10/01/93-9/30/94 369.15 738.30 184.58 2.38

10/01/94-9/30/95 380.46 760.92 190.23 3.06

10/01/95-9/30/96 391.22 782.44 195.61 2.83

10/01/96-9/30/97 400.53 801.06 200.27 2.38

10/01/97-9/30/98 417.87 835.74 208.94 4.33

10/01/98-9/30/99 435.88 871.76 217.94 4.31

10/01/99-9/30/00 450.64 901.28 225.32 3.39

10/01/00-9/30/01 466.91 933.82 233.46 3.61

10/01/01-9/30/02 483.04 966.08 241.52 3.45

10/01/02-9/30/03 498.27 996.54 249.14 3.15

10/01/03-9/30/04 515.39 1,030.78 257.70 3.44

10/01/04-9/30/05 523.58 1,047.16 261.79 1.59

10/01/05-9/30/06 536.82 1,073.64 268.41 2.53

10/01/06-9/30/07 557.22 1,114.44 278.61 3.80

10/01/07-9/30/08 580.18 1,160.36 290.09 4.12

10/01/08-9/30/09 600.31 1,200.62 300.16 3.47

10/01/09-9/30/10 612.33 1,224.66 306.17 2.00

1/ Maximum became applicable in death cases (for any death after September 28, 1984) pursuant to LHWCA Amendments of 1984. Section

 9(e)(1) provides that the total weekly death benefits shall not exceed the lesser of the average weekly wages of the deceased or the benefits

 that the deceased would have been eligible to receive under section 6(b)(1). Maximum in death cases not applicable to DCCA cases

 (Keener v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 800 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. (1986)).

2/ Five percent statutory maximum increase applicable in FY 1985 under section 10(f) of LHWCA, as amended. Maximum increase not

 applicable to DCCA cases (see note 1/, above).
 Table C-3

 LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds' Expenditures 1/

FY 2001 - FY 2010

 ($ thousands)

 LHWCA DCCA

 Expenditures ($) Number Expenditures ($) Number

of of

Second Pre Second Second Pre Second

Injury Amend. Injury Injury Amend. Injury

FY Total Cases 2/ Cases 3/ Rehab. 4/ Other 5/ Cases Total Cases 2/ Cases 3/ Rehab. 4/ Other 5/ Cases

2001 $133,374 $119,952 $2,295 $5,121 $6,006 4,953 $11,341 $10,368 $708 $0 $265 601

2002 131,715 119,661 2,240 4,801 5,013 4,880 11,386 10,214 702 0 469 585

2003 131,589 119,965 2,153 4,628 4,844 4,778 11,184 9,997 664 0 523 572

2004 135,247 122,358 2,081 4,990 5,818 4,694 10,920 9,867 645 0 408 544

2005 134,549 122,418 1,973 5,002 5,156 4,588 10,604 9,767 597 0 240 527

2006 133,270 123,412 1,811 2,749 5,298 4,908 10,246 9,418 588 0 240 621

2007 131,920 117,524 1,796 6,715 5,885 4,728 10,087 9,260 613 0 214 603

2008 126,933 116,894 1,673 2,330 6,035 4,533 9,960 9,104 630 0 226 582

2009 132,688 121,203 1,656 2,832 6,996 4,378 10,094 9,197 590 0 306 550

2010 128,110 116,703 1,484 3,183 6,740 4,201 9,388 8,598 548 0 241 516

1/ Special Fund expenditures shown in this table are reported on a cash basis, i.e., expenses are recognized when paid.

2/ Section 8(f) payments to employees who sustain second injuries that, superimposed on a pre-existing injury, result in the employee's permanent disability or death.

3/ Section 10(h) of the Act requires that compensation payments to permanent total disability and death cases, when the injury or death is caused by an employment event that occurred

 prior to enactment of the 1972 amendments, be adjusted to conform with the weekly wage computation methods and compensation rates put into effect by the 1972 amendments. Fifty

 percent of any additional compensation or death benefit paid as a result of these adjustments are to be paid out of the Special Fund accounts.

4/ In cases where vocational or medical rehabilitation services for permanently disabled employees are not available otherwise, and for maintenance allowances for employees undergoing

 vocational rehabilitation, sections 39(c) and 8(g) of the Act authorize the cost of these services to be paid by the Special Fund.

5/ For cases where impartial medical exams or reviews are ordered by the Department of Labor (section 7(e) of Act) and where a compensation award cannot be paid due to employer

 default (section 18(b)), the expenses or payments resulting from these actions may be covered by the Special Fund. Also included as "Other" expenditures of the Funds are disbursements

 under section 44(d) to refund assessment overpayments in FY 2001 - FY 2006. Excluded are disbursements from proceeds of employer securities redeemed under section 32 of the Act.

 These monies are exclusively for payment of compensation and medical benefits to employees of companies in default.

Note: Special Fund expenditure totals for some years as shown above may differ from those reported to Congress in the Appendix to the President's budget. The figures here are from

 year-end Status of Funds reports while the President's budget reflects total outlays as reported to the Department of Treasury and may include technical adjustments made by Treasury

 or the Office of Management and Budget.
 Table C-4

 LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds' Assessments 1/

 CY 2001 - CY 2010

 ($ thousands)

 LHWCA DCCA

Total Industry Preceding Year Total Assessment Total Industry Preceding Year Total Assessment

 CY Assessments 2/ Industry Payments 3/ Base Yr. Assessments 2/ Industry Payments Base Yr.

2001 $133,000 $361,549 CY 2000 $12,000 $5,103 CY 2000

2002 125,000 372,376 CY 2001 11,000 5,552 CY 2001

2003 125,000 364,194 CY 2002 10,800 4,746 CY 2002

2004 137,000 368,671 CY 2003 11,500 4,286 CY 2003

2005 135,000 388,258 CY 2004 11,500 5,402 CY 2004

2006 125,000 418,714 CY 2005 10,500 4,277 CY 2005

2007 125,000 471,133 CY 2006 10,000 4,185 CY 2006

2008 124,000 495,148 CY 2007 8,500 4,758 CY 2007

2009 125,000 564,798 CY 2008 11,500 3,598 CY 2008

2010 124,000 621,671 CY 2009 7,500 3,437 CY 2009

1/ Annual assessments of employers and insurance carriers are the largest single source of receipts to the Special Funds. Other receipts to the Funds include fines and

 penalties, payments for death cases where there is no person entitled under the Act to the benefit payments, interest earned on Fund investments, overpayment and third

 party recoveries, and monies received from redemption of securities under section 32 of the Act to pay compensation due employees of companies in default. These

 payments constitute a small portion of the total receipts of the Special Funds.

2/ Assessments as shown here are not receipts to the Fund that were received during a given calendar year, but total assessments that are receivable from employers and

 insurance carriers based on the Special Fund assessment formula as prescribed under section 44(c) of the Act.

3/ Annual industry assessments prior to CY 1985 were based on each employer's or insurance carrier's total disability compensation and medical benefit payments under

 the Act during the preceding calendar year. The LHWCA Amendments of 1984 revised the method for computing assessments in two ways. Effective in CY 1985,

 assessments are based on disability compensation payments only, thereby excluding medical benefits from the computation. Also, a factor for section 8(f) payments

 attributable to each employer/carrier was added to the assessment base.
 Table C-5

Summary of Case Processing Activities Under LHWCA 1/

 FY 2001 - FY 2010

 Adjudication Level Fiscal Year

 and Case Status 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

District Offices

Pending Inventory of Cases 6,489 7,391 5,495 6,051 6,375 6,338 8,563 4/ 7,726 8,075 7,700

OALJ

 Carryover from Previous FY 3,562 3,388 2,980 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 2,324

 New Cases 3,500 3,276 3,036 2,926 2,763 2,413 2,614 2,657 2,696 2,884

Total Docket 7,062 6,664 6,016 5,443 5,118 4,731 4,598 4,780 4,864 5,208

 (Dispositions) 3,674 3,529 3,499 3,088 2,800 2,747 2,475 2,612 2,540 2,798

Pending Inventory 3,388 2,980 3/ 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 2,324 2,410

BRB

 Carryover from Previous FY 295 248 208 267 222 211 182 152 134 114

 New Cases 317 260 332 297 288 248 241 226 229 200

Total Docket 612 508 540 564 510 459 423 378 363 314

 (Dispositions) 384 319 282 355 304 288 282 260 256 195

Pending Inventory 248 2/ 208 2/ 267 2/ 222 2/ 211 2/ 182 2/ 152 2/ 134 2/ 114 2/ 130 2/

1/ Beginning in FY 1988, DCCA cases are excluded from DLHWC's District Offices' inventory as administration of these cases was delegated to the District of Columbia government effective July 18, 1988.

 Case processing and adjudication activities at the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and Benefits Review Board (BRB) levels continue to include both LHWCA and DCCA cases.

2/ Data adjusted by BRB to account for misfiled, duplicate, or reinstated appeals.

3/ Includes dispositions of Boone 33(g) cases.

4/ The increase in pending inventory compared to FY 2006 was due to the large number of new Defense Base Act cases created in the second quarter of FY 2007. The total number of new cases increased by

 42 percent during FY 2007.
 Table D-1 Part B

 Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 2010 1/

Case Status/Claims Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2010 73,091 110,689

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2010 58,470 92,671

 Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication

 Branch (FAB) 4/ 51,488 77,024

 Final Approved 30,070 45,584

 Final Denied 21,418 31,440

 Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5/ 1,470 3,109

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 457 1,182

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 1,013 1,927

 Completed Initial Processing -

 Referred to NIOSH 2,734 6,525

 Pending Initial Processing

 In District Office 6/ 2,778 6,013

Lump Sum Compensations 28,111 43,048

Total Payment Amounts $3,530,881,806

1/ Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception through September 30, 2010.

2/ "Case" counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and illness or

 death are the basis for a "claim." (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3/ "Claim" counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees and

 all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4/ Each case or claim also received recommended decision by district office.

5/ Each case or claim still pending final decision by FAB.

6/ Includes remanded cases now in development and closed cases.
 Table D-1 Part E

 Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 2010 1/

Case Status/Claims Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2010 64,402 91,604

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2010 52,951 61,577

 Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication

 Branch (FAB) 4/ 44,870 47,750

 Final Approved 24,976 26,635

 Final Denied 19,894 21,115

 Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5/ 1,488 1,990

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 468 727

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 1,020 1,263

 Completed Initial Processing -

 Referred to NIOSH 1,413 1,866

 Pending Initial Processing

 In District Office 6/ 5,180 9,971

Compensation Payments (Unique Cases and Claims) 18,851 19,962

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $2,105,776,495

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 9,070 9,739

Total Lump Sum Payment Amts. $1,273,909,346

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,564 1,925

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts. $93,544,605

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 6,513 6,513

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $738,322,544

1/ Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception through September 30, 2010.

2/ "Case" counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and illness or

 death are the basis for a "claim." (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3/ "Claim" counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees and

 all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4/ Each case or claim also received recommended decision by district office.

5/ Each case or claim still pending final decision by FAB.

6/ Includes remanded cases now in development and closed cases.
 Table D-2 Part B

 Processing Activity During FY 2010

 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims 1/

Processing Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2010 6,510 10,194

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2010 6,136 9,729

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2010 7,469 4/ 10,797

 Final Approved 3,800 5,748

 Final Denied 3,669 5,049

Modification Orders in FY 2010 272 330

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2010 8,226 12,439

 Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 4,365 6,919

 Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 3,861 5,520

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2010 3,296 4,435

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2010 3,278 5,034

 ECMS-Generated Payments 3,243 4,983

 Non ECMS-Generated Payments 35 51

Remands 202 294

1/ Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2010 only, therefore the number of activities

 reported do not add up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY 2010. (Many

 activities recorded occurred on cases/claims received prior to FY 2010).

2/ "Case" counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and illness

 or death are the basis for a "claim." (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3/ "Claim" counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees and

 all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4/ Total includes cases with recommended decisions in FY 2010.
 Table D-2 Part E

 Processing Activity During FY 2010

 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims 1/

Processing Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2010 6,566 8,677

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2010 5,892 6,982

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2010 10,577 4/ 10,867

 Final Approved 6,178 6,330

 Final Denied 4,399 4,537

Modification Orders in FY 2010 356 425

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2010 10,809 11,197

 Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 6,327 6,525

 Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 4,482 4,672

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2010 1,956 2,106

Compensation Payments in FY 2010 (Unique Cases and Claims) 4,312 4,429

 ECMS-Generated Payments 4,288 4,403

 Non ECMS-Generated Payments 24 26

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $380,986,882 5/

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,396 1,480

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $159,310,270

Wage-Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 496 538

Total Wage-Loss Payment Amts. $22,924,283

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 2,699 2,699

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $188,929,724

Remands 238 332

1/ Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2010 only, therefore the number of activities reported

 do not add up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY 2010. (Many activities recorded

 occurred on cases/claims received prior to FY 2010).

2/ "Case" counts are numbers of employees (or survivors of employees) whose work and illness or death

 are the basis for a "claim." (One case may have multiple survivor claims).

3/ "Claim" counts are greater than case counts because they include numbers of employees and

 all survivors of employees who filed for benefits.

4/ Total includes cases with recommended decisions in FY 2010.

5/ Total includes compensation payments of $9,822,605 that were not generated by Energy Case Mangement

 System.
 Table D-3 Part B

 EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Payments by Catergory,

Program Inception Through September 30, 2010

Number of Percentage of Total Number of Paid Total Compensation Paid 2/ Percentage of Total

Category Approved Cases 1/ Final Approvals Claimants 1/ ($ thousands) Compensation Paid

Radiation Exposure Comp. Act (RECA) 3/ 6,733 22.4% 10,472 $334,842 9.5%

Special Exposure Cohort Cancer (CN) 11,909 39.6% 18,712 1,740,910 49.3%

Dose Reconstructed Cancer (CN) 7,481 24.9% 10,536 1,110,748 31.5%

Beryllium Disease (CBD) 4/ 1,980 6.6% 2,604 292,580 8.3%

Beryllium Sensitivity-Only (BS) 1,611 5.4% N/A N/A N/A

Silicosis (CS) 81 0.3% 99 11,650 0.3%

Multiple Conditions 5/ 258 0.9% 280 37,950 1.1%

TOTAL 30,053 100.0% 42,703 $3,528,680 6/ 100.0%

1/ There is not a direct correlation between number of approved cases and number of paid claimants for two reasons: (1) more than one claimant can receive payment

 on a single approved case, and (2) some cases were approved prior to 9/30/2010, but payments were not issued.

2/ Represents total lump sum compensation payments from EEOIC program inception through September 30, 2010.

3/ RECA cases are not counted in any other category of this table.

4/ Cases approved for both CBD and BS are counted in the CBD category, only.

5/ Cases counted in the Multiple Conditions category were approved for CN and CBD, or CN and CS, or CBD and CS, or CN and BS, or CS and BS.

6/ Total compensation paid does not include cases that could not be attributed to the designated categories.
 Table D-4 Part B

 EEOICPA Cases With Final Decision to Deny,

 Program Inception Through September 30, 2010

Reason for Denial Number of Cases 1/

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE

Facility, Atomic Weapons Employer, or Beryllium

Vendor During a Covered Time Period 4,938

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 635

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part B

of EEOICPA 2/ 9,433

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability

That the Cancer is Related to Employment

is Less Than 50 Percent 15,038

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish

Entitlement 5,745

TOTAL 35,789

1/ A case may have more than one final decision. (For example, a request for

 modification may result in a second final decision on a case). Therefore, the

 total number shown does not represent the number of cases with final decisions

 to deny.

2/ Non-covered applications.
 Table D-4 Part E

 EEOICPA Cases With Final Decision to Deny,

 Program Inception Through September 30, 2010

Reason for Denial Number of Cases 1/

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE

Facility, Atomic Weapons Employer, or Beryllium

Vendor During a Covered Time Period 3,472

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 7,689

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part E

of EEOICPA 2/ 143

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability

That the Cancer is Related to Employment

is Less Than 50 Percent 6,328

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish

Entitlement 13,423

TOTAL 31,055

1/ A case may have more than one final decision. (For example, a request for

 modification may result in a second final decision on a case). Therefore,

 the total number shown does not represent the number of cases with final

 decisions to deny.

2/ Non-covered applications.
 Table D-5 Part B

 Most Prevalent Non-Covered Medical Conditions,

 EEOIC Program Inception Through September 30, 2010

 Percentage of All Denials

Non-Covered Medical Condition For This Condition 1/

Other Lung Conditions 22 %

Heart Condition/Failure/Attack/Hypertension 11

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease & Emphysema 9

Asbestosis 6

Renal Condition or Disorder (Kidney Failure, Kidney Stones) 6

Hearing Loss 3

Benign Tumors, Polyps, Skin Spots 3

Diabetes 3

Neurological Disorder 2

Thyroid Conditions (e.g., Hypothyroidism) 2

Anemia 1

Back or Neck Problems 1

Parkinson's Disease 1

Psychological Conditions 1

All Other Non-Covered Conditions (Each Less Than 1%) or

Other (Not Listed) 22

No Condition Reported on Claim Form or Blank Condition Type 8

1/ Based on cases that were denied because claimed condition was not covered under Part B

 of EEOICPA. These figures exclude cases that have a "covered" condition, whereas Table

 D-4 Part B includes these cases.

Note: The sum of individual items may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
66

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers'

Compensation Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20210

202-693-0031

www.dol.gov/owcp

Director, Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs

Gary A. Steinberg, Acting

Division of Administration and Operations

Michael Tyllas, Director

Division of Financial Administration

Joseph Shellenberger, Director

Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dfec)

Douglas C. Fitzgerald, Director

Julia Tritz, Acting Deputy Director

Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dcmwc)

Steven D. Breeskin, Director

Michael McClaran, Deputy Director

Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc)

Antonio Rios, Acting Director

Division of Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/energy)

Rachel P. Leiton, Director

Christy A. Long, Deputy Director

LuAnn Kressley, Chief, Final Adjudication Branch

Region I/II -- Northeast

(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,

New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virgin Islands)

Regional Office (New York)

Zev Sapir, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

201 Varick Street, Room 740

New York, NY 10014

646-264-3100

New York FECA District Office

Rholanda Basnight, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

201 Varick Street, Room 740

New York, NY 10014-0566

212-863-0800

New York Longshore District Office

Richard V. Robilotti, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

201 Varick Street, Room 740

Post Office Box 249

New York, NY 10014-0249

646-264-3010

Boston FECA District Office

Susan Morales, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

JFK Federal Building, Room E-260

Boston, MA 02203

857-264-4600

Boston Longshore District Office

David Groeneveld, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

JFK Federal Building, Room E-260

Boston, MA 02203

617-624-6750

EEOICPA Resource Center

Contract Facility:

(New York Site)

David San Lorenzo, Office Manager

6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 2A, Box #2

Amherst, NY 14226

716-832-6200 (Toll-Free 1-800-941-3943)

newyork.center@rrohio.com
67

Region III -- Philadelphia

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,

Virginia, West Virginia)

Regional Office

John McKenna, Acting Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

Curtis Center, Suite 780 West

170 S. Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3313

215-861-5406

Philadelphia FECA District Office

Kellianne Conaway, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

Curtis Center, Suite 715 East

170 S. Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3308

267-687-4160

Baltimore Longshore District Office

Theresa Magyar, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

The Federal Building, Room 410-B

31 Hopkins Place

Baltimore, MD 21201

410-962-3677

Norfolk Longshore District Office

Theresa Magyar, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

Federal Building, Room 212

200 Granby Mall

Norfolk, VA 23510

757-441-3071

Johnstown Black Lung District Office

Douglas Dettling, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Greater Johnstown Tech Park

1 Tech Park Drive, Suite 250

Johnstown, PA 15901-1267

814-619-7777 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3754)

Charleston Black Lung District Office

Richard Hanna, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Charleston Federal Center, Suite 110

500 Quarrier Street

Charleston, WV 25301-2130

304-347-7100 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3749)

Greensburg Black Lung District Office

Colleen Smalley, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

1225 South Main Street, Suite 405

Greensburg, PA 15601-5370

724-836-7230 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3753)

Parkersburg Black Lung Sub-District Office

Carolyn King, Supervisory Claims Examiner

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

425 Juliana Street, Suite 3116

Parkersburg, WV 26101-5352

304-420-6385 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3751)

DCMWC Claimant Service Locations:

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Mine Safety & Health Academy, Rm. G-100

139 Airport Road

Beckley, WV 25802

304-252-9514

Benefit Counselors

Bluestone Health Center

3997 Beckley Road

Princeton, WV 24740

304-431-5499

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

1103 George Kostas Drive

Logan, WV 25601

304-752-9514

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Mine Safety and Health Administration Office

1664 Pond Fork Road

Madison, WV 25130

1-800-347-3749

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

604 Cheat Road

Morgantown, WV 26505

1-800-347-3749

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Wise County Plaza, 2nd Floor

Route 23

Wise, VA 24293

276-679-4590

Region IV -- Southeast

(Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Tennessee)

Regional Office

Magdalena Fernandez, Acting Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

400 West Bay Street, Room 943

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4776
68

Jacksonville FECA District Office

Magdalena Fernandez, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

400 West Bay Street, Room 826

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-366-0100

Jacksonville Longshore District Office

Charles Lee, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

Charles E. Bennett Federal Bldg.

400 West Bay Street, Room 63A, Box 28

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4788

Jacksonville Energy District Office

James Bibeault, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

400 West Bay Street, Room 722

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4705 (Toll-Free 1-877-336-4272)

Pikeville Black Lung District Office

Roger Belcher, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

164 Main Street, Suite 508

Pikeville, KY 41501-1182

606-218-9300 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4599)

Mt. Sterling Black Lung Sub-District Office

Vicky C. Ashby, Assistant District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

402 Campbell Way

Mt. Sterling, KY 40353

859-498-9700 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4628)

EEOICPA Resource Center

Contract Facilities:

(Paducah Site)

Alison Gill, Office Manager

Barkley Center, Unit 125

125 Memorial Drive

Paducah, KY 42001

270-534-0599 (Toll-Free 1-866-534-0599)

paducah.center@rrohio.com

(Savannah River Site)

Karen Hillman, Office Manager

1708 Bunting Drive

North Augusta, SC 29841

803-279-2728 (Toll-Free 1-866-666-4606)

srs.center@rrohio.com

(Oak Ridge Site)

Shirley White, Office Manager

Jackson Plaza Office Complex

800 Oak Ridge Turnpike – Suite C-103

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

865-481-0411 (Toll-Free 1-866-481-0411)

or.center@rrohio.gov

Region V/VII -- Midwest

(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

Ohio, Wisconsin, overseas cases)

Regional Office (Chicago)

Robert Sullivan, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

230 South Dearborn Street, 8th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

312-789-2800

Chicago FECA District Office

James Polcyn, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

230 South Dearborn Street, 8th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

312-789-2800

Cleveland FECA District Office

Karen Spence, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

1240 East Ninth Street, Room 851

Cleveland, OH 44199

216-902-5600

Cleveland Energy District Office

Annette Prindle, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 350

Cleveland, OH 44114

216-802-1300 (Toll-Free 1-888-859-7211)

Columbus Black Lung District Office

Lorraine Rardain, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

1160 Dublin Road, Suite 300

Columbus, OH 43215-1052

614-469-5227 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3771)

Kansas City FECA District Office

Lois Maxwell, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

Two Pershing Square Building

2300 Main Street, Suite 1090

Kansas City, MO 64108-2416

816-268-3040

EEOICPA Resource Center

Contract Facility:

(Portsmouth Site)

Jackie Sensue, Office Manager

1200 Gay Street

Portsmouth, OH 45662

740-353-6993 (Toll-Free 1-866-363-6993)

portsmouth.center@rrohio.com
69

Region VI/VIII -- Southwest

(Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming)

Regional Office (Dallas)

Sharon Tyler, Acting Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

525 South Griffin Street, Room 407

Dallas, TX 75202

972-850-2409

Dallas FECA District Office

Christina Stark, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

525 South Griffin Street, Room 100

Dallas, TX 75202

214-749-2320

Houston Longshore District Office

David Widener, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

Mickey Leland Federal Building

1919 Smith Street, Suite 870

Houston, TX 77002

713-209-3235

New Orleans Longshore District Office

David Duhon, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

600 S. Maestri Place, Suite 617

New Orleans, LA 70130

504-589-2671

Denver FECA District Office

Shirley Bridge, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

P.O. Box 25602

One Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 53

Denver, CO 80225-0602

303-202-2500

Denver Black Lung District Office

Valerie Jackson, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Building 53 – Suite D2212

One Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225-0603

720-264-3100 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4612)

Denver Energy District Office

Janet Kapsin, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

P.O. Box 25601

One Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 53

Denver, CO 80225-0601

720-264-3060 (Toll-Free 1-888-805-3389)

EEOICPA Resource Center

Contract Facilities:

(Rocky Flats Site)

Janele Horner-Zarate, Office Manager

8758 Wolff Court, Suite 101

Westminster, CO 80031

720-540-4977 (Toll-Free 1-866-540-4977)

denver.center@rrohio.com

(Espanola Site)

Karen Martinez, Office Manager

412 Paseo De Onate, Suite D

Espanola, NM 87532

505-747-6766 (Toll-Free 1-866-272-3622)

espanola.center@rrohio.com

Region IX/X -- Pacific

(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho,

Nevada, Oregon, Washington)

Regional Office (San Francisco)

Sharon Tyler, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-100F

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-241-3300

San Francisco FECA District Office

Andy Tharp, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-300

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-625-7500

San Francisco Longshore District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-100

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-625-7669

Long Beach Longshore District Office

Marco Adame, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

401 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 720

Long Beach, CA 90802

562-980-3577

Honolulu Longshore Sub-District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 5-135

Post Office Box 50209

Honolulu, HI 96850

808-541-1983
70

Seattle FECA District Office

Marcus Tapia, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

300 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1050F

Seattle, WA 98104-2429

206-470-3100

Seattle Longshore District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

300 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1050L

Seattle, WA 98104

206-504-5287

Seattle Energy District Office

Joyce Vail, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

300 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1050E

Seattle, WA 98104-2397

206-373-6750 (Toll-Free 1-888-805-3401)

EEOICPA Resource Center

Contract Facilities:

(Idaho Falls Site) 

Joe Krachenfels, Office Manager

Exchange Plaza

1820 East 17th Street, Suite 250

Idaho Falls, ID 83404

208-523-0158 (Toll-Free 1-800-861-8608)

idaho.center@rrohio.com

(Las Vegas Site)

Joe Krachenfels, Office Manager

Flamingo Executive Park

1050 East Flamingo Road, Suite W-156

Las Vegas, NV 89119

702-697-0841 (Toll-Free 1-866-697-0841)

vegas.center@rrohio.com

(Hanford Site)

Steve Beehler, Office Manager

303 Bradley Blvd., Ste. 104

Richland, WA 99352

509-946-3333 (Toll-Free 1-888-654-0014)

hanford.center@rrohio.com

(California Site)

Joe Krachenfels, Office Manager

7027 Dublin Blvd., Suite 150

Dublin, CA 94568

925-606-6302 (Toll-Free 1-866-606-6302)

california.center@rrohio.com

National Operations Office

(District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia)

Angella Winn, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

National Operations Office

800 N. Capitol St., NW., Room 800

Washington, DC 20211

202-513-6800
71