OWCP Annual Report

to Congress

FY 2011

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 2011

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 2011 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, 2010, through September 30, 2011.

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 .........................................................................................14

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ..............................................24

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act ...................34

Appendix..................................................................................................................45

Office Directory .......................................................................................................69
2

DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 was another very successful year for the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP). In the process of fulfilling its mission “To protect the interests of workers who are injured or become ill 

on the job, their families and their employers by making timely, appropriate, and accurate decisions on claims, 

providing prompt payment of benefits and helping injured workers return to gainful work as early as is feasible,” 

the four OWCP programs met or exceeded 16 of the 19 priority performance targets that were established for the 

agency while providing assistance to over 335,000 individuals and their families with compensation and medical 

benefits totaling nearly $4.6 billion during the year.

The Federal Employees’ Compensation (FEC) program closely worked with both OWCP management and DOL’s 

Office of the Solicitor to issue new regulations, which had not been substantially revised since 1999. At the same 

time, we made substantial progress in FY 2011 in advancing statutory reform of the Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act, including ground-breaking reforms that will foster return-to-work outcomes, modernize program 

and systems operations, and establish greater benefit equity. The FEC program, in coordination with its 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) partner, was responsible for the successful attainment of the 

Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) initiative’s first year, government-wide goals. 

Substantial headway also was made to fulfill FEC’s responsibilities to support Executive Order 13548, to increase 

disability hiring in the Federal government, an initiative we share with DOL’s Office of Disability Employment 

Policy, the Office of Personnel Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the White 

House. Both of FEC’s wage-loss claims processing targets were exceeded for this year. In addition, and as a result 

of successfully working with injured employees and employing agencies to help employees recover from their 

injuries and return to work, lost production days for non-postal agencies was reduced 2.3 percent from 34.6 to 33.8 

and the share of Federal employees with work-related injuries or illnesses coming under FEC’s Disability 

Management program that were reemployed by non-Postal Federal agencies increased two percent to 91.6 percent.

While less than last year, the increase in case workloads created by Section 1556 of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act (ACA) continued for the Black Lung program in FY 2011. Despite this surge in work brought 

on by the passage of the ACA, the program sustained a high level of performance during the year by beating its 

targets for the average time needed to render a proposed decision by 12 days, besting the annual target by five 

percent. Over 90 percent of automatic miner-to-widow conversions were completed within 45 days, enabling the 

timely continuity of benefits due eligible survivors. The Black Lung program also successfully strengthened our ties 

with stakeholders through increased outreach programs by its national and district offices, particularly with black 

lung clinics and medical and diagnostic providers.

The Longshore program continued to achieve a high level of performance despite increasing workload demands, 

especially related to claims filed under the Defense Base Act (DBA). During FY 2011, Longshore exceeded three of 

their four Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) goals aimed at speeding initial claim processing and benefit 

delivery to injured workers. The sharing of DBA claims data and other important information among program 

stakeholders resulted in increased compliance with the law, and across the entire program the number of informal 

conferences, written recommendations, and compensation orders were at an all-time high. The Longshore program 

also delivered consistently superior customer service throughout the year, with 81 percent of its customers rating 

their experience with the program as “very satisfied”.

During FY 2011, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) program 

focused on increased communication, both internally and externally, and making available to its customers a variety 
3

of expanded outreach activities. The EEOICPA program continued to provide coordinated information about the 

program to the public through its work with the Department of Energy and the National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health under the Joint Outreach Task Group. Among new services implemented for claimants, a webbased Claimant Status Page was launched which allows claimants access to limited claims information; a Web-Ex 

Video Conferencing System was introduced to allow EEOICPA program staff to conduct oral hearings on claims 

issues in “real time” to save both time and travel costs; and the expansion of the Site Exposure Matrices database 

continued, which assists claims examiners in determining the types of chemicals and toxic substances that existed at 

the DOE sites and eases the evidentiary burden on claimants and speeds the claims process. Over $1.2 billion in 

compensation and medical benefits were paid to over 7,200 employees or their survivors under Part B of the 

EEOICPA and to more than 4,200 employees or their survivors under Part E. In addition to these accomplishments, 

all three of the EEOICPA program’s GPRA goals were again achieved. In just four years, processing time for Part B 

claims has dropped by 62 percent, from an average of 238 days in FY 2007 to an average of 91 days this year. For 

Part E claims, the decrease is 66 percent – from 293 days to 101. Also, 95 percent of the Part B and Part E final 

decisions were issued by the program’s Final Adjudication Branch within the program’s timeliness standards, in 

excess of the 92 percent goal.

The performance goals and the many accomplishments achieved by each of our four programs during FY 2011is 

directly attributable to the expertise and creative and innovative efforts of the entire OWCP staff. The successful 

operation of a workers’ compensation program as diverse and complex as OWCP requires a dedicated staff such as 

ours, one with an unwavering commitment to provide the highest quality of services that is deserved by claimants, 

their families, and the stakeholder communities we serve. OWCP continues to show that it is a program ready to 

achieve its current mission as well as accepting the future challenges that are ahead.

 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 95 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) 2011, the FEC program provided nearly 251,000 workers and survivors almost $3.0 billion in 

benefits for work-related injuries, illnesses, or deaths. Of these benefit payments, more than $1.9 billion were for 

wage-loss compensation, $913 million for medical and rehabilitation services, and $139 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 
5

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

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 2011, these non-chargeback expenses were approximately $73.9 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 were $41 million in FY 2011, significantly higher than in FY 

2006 when payouts were only $2 million. The higher costs reflect the increased involvement of contractor staff in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, which has 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 2011, administrative expenditures for the FEC program totaled $167.5 million. Of this amount, $153.6

million, approximately 4.9 percent of total program costs, were direct appropriations to the DOL’s Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), including $98.2 million in salaries and expenses and $55.4 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 $13.9 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.

Agency High Priority Goal

To address the reemployment of workers who suffer severe injuries and those with permanent disabilities, DFEC 

jointly leads, with OSHA, an Agency High Priority Goal to develop the Federal government as a Model Return-toWork Program. The effort is to improve return to work after injury and better accommodation of those with 

disabilities in the Federal workplace. Two Executive-level initiatives are providing government-wide authority to 

support this objective.

Executive Order 13548 of July 26, 2010, directs Federal agencies to make special efforts to recruit and hire workers 

with disabilities and to ensure the retention of those who are injured on the job. Under the Executive Order, agencies 

are to work to improve, expand, and increase successful return-to-work outcomes by increasing the availability of 

job accommodations and light or limited duty jobs, and removing disincentives for FECA claimants to return to 

work.

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 prior safety, health and return-to-work initiatives and tasks agencies with the 

additional objectives of analyzing 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.
6

• Analyzing lost time injury and illness data.

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

• Increasing the timely filing of wage-loss claims.

• Reducing lost production day rates.

• Speeding employees’ return to work in cases of serious injury or illness.

Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment Initiative

Of the seven government-wide performance goals established by POWER, DFEC is responsible for four. In FY 

2011, the government-wide targets were:

• Increase the percent of Notices of Injury filed by Federal employers within 14 days to 81 percent.

• Increase the percent of Wage-Loss Claims filed by Federal employers within 7 days to 60 percent.

• Reduce agency Lost Production Day Rates (per 100 employees) to 35.4 days.

• Increase the percent of FECA Disability Management Cases returned to work within two years to 86.7 percent.

Timely Submission of Notices of Injury and Wage-Loss Claims. The ability of DFEC to promptly initiate 

intervention and return-to-work services is improved if Federal employers are timely in the submission of injury 

reports and wage-loss claims. Earlier receipt of these forms also enables DFEC to begin claims adjudication and 

payment processing sooner. For these reasons, POWER includes two additional goals to improve timely submission. 

In FY 2011, Federal agencies filed 83.4 percent of Notices of Injury within 14 days. Agencies also filed 68.5 

percent of wage-loss claims within 7 days. Both results exceeded the established targets. Fourteen agencies are 

using Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) systems to report injuries electronically. Most of these agencies made 

immediate significant gains in timeliness subsequent to adoption of EDI. To expand electronic filing capability to all 

agencies, DFEC is developing a web-based capability (ECOMP) that will extend the electronic submission capability 

to all employing agencies and further cut the time of delivery.

Reduce Government-Wide Lost Production Day (LPD) Rates. Under POWER, individual Executive Branch

agencies are directed to reduce LPD rates (per 100 employees) by one percent per year through FY 2014. In FY 

2011, the government-wide average LPD rate was reduced to 33.8 days. In FY 2010, the result had been 34.6 days. 

To support achievement of POWER’s four-year LPD goals, DFEC established the POWER Return-to-Work (RTW) 

Council, with the 14 largest Federal agencies as a forum to review performance results, share best practices, and set 

individual agency goals that will improve results.

Increase the Share of Federal Employees that Return to Work Within Two Years of Entering FECA’s 

Disability Management Program. POWER’s four-year target is to increase the overall share of cases that are 

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

management by DFEC. In FY 2011, 91.6 percent of the injured workers had been returned to work within two years, 

an increase from the FY 2010 result of 89.7 percent. OWCP, along with DOL’s Office of Disability Employment 

Policy (ODEP) is conducting a study in FY 2012 to identify disability hiring best practices used by Federal agencies 

and document the obstacles that restrict agency return-to-work efforts. Findings will be shared through the POWER 

RTW Council and more directly with agency workers’ compensation and human resources staff in a strengthened 
7

OWCP/ODEP technical assistance program. The feasibility of implementing best practice approaches or mitigating 

job placement obstacles will be tested as DFEC works with individual agencies on implementation.

Achievement of these goals in FY 2011 was due to a combination of earlier identification and delivery of services to 

new injury cases, Disability Management process and coordination improvements, and effective use of the POWER 

initiative to focus Federal agencies on performance results.

In support of the POWER initiative, OWCP established the POWER Return to Work Council to serve as a forum for 

discussion and exchange of best practices in the area of return to work; to review the results of analytical studies on 

return to work and promote sharing and implementation of best practices identified; and, to form a bridge between 

the workers’ compensation and disability hiring personnel and establish a community of practice for the sharing of

information, ideas and experiences.

The Council is composed of representatives of the 14 agencies subject to the return-to-work goal of the POWER 

initiative, as well as representatives from DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy, OSHA’s Office of Federal 

Agency Programs and the Office of Personnel Management. The Council’s charter was finalized at the inaugural 

meeting on September 21, 2011. The second quarterly meeting, held on December 14, 2011, concentrated on 

OWCP’s efforts to assist agencies in bringing injured workers back into the Federal government and featured a 

presentation from the Director of the Department of Defense’s Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program.

The POWER Council also works in support of 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 and the Council 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 (ODEP) to pursue innovative reemployment strategies and craft and advance 

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

Case Adjudication and Management

Approximately 121,000 new injury and illness claims were filed under FECA in FY 2011. 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, 97.4

percent were adjudicated within 45 days of the day OWCP received notice of the injury. In FY 2011, 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, 94.9 percent were adjudicated 

within 90 days. Of the more complex non-traumatic cases, 88.1 percent were adjudicated within 180 days.

The FEC program has reduced time loss in new injury cases 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 2011, 8,081 injured Federal employees returned to work as a result of early nurse intervention. Additionally, 

vocational rehabilitation counselors arranged training, when necessary, and successfully placed 103 injured workers
8

into non-Federal employment, plus another 385 with previous or new Federal employers. In the past few years, the 

government-wide average length of disability in QCM cases (lost production days within the first year from the date 

FECA wage-loss began) has risen due to an increase in USPS cases in QCM and the Postal Service’s reduced 

capacity to offer or maintain return-to-work opportunities. Whereas average LPD in QCM cases was 142 days in FY 

2009, average LPD was 173 days in FY 2011.

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

placement assistance with a goal of reemploying injured workers. Of the cases that were screened in FY 2011, the 

disability in 1,080 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.

Services to Claimants and Beneficiaries

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

Customers.” Over 1.6 million calls were received by the DFEC district offices during FY 2011, many of which were 

handled by Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) in the 12 district offices. Since 2006, average caller wait 

times have been reduced by over 20 percent; turnaround time to caller inquiries has been reduced by more than 70 

percent; and response effectiveness has improved by nearly 140 percent. During FY 2011, calls were connected in 

an average of less than one minute, well below DFEC’s service standard of three minutes. The average wait and 

response times for callers were below the established targets, and 82 percent of calls were answered on the same day 

that they were received.

DFEC deployed a new Voice-Over Internet Protocol telephone system in FY 2011. The system replaced antiquated 

hardware with feature-rich hardware and supporting software. Simultaneously, a self-help call system was devised 

which allows users to get real time information about a workers’ compensation claim without having to await a call 

back from claims staff. This automated self-help system is available 24 hours per day. The new system interfaces 

with the iFECS system, thereby allowing DFEC to automatically capture all telephone messages left for claims staff 

and associate these calls with a specific case.

The new system also allows for much greater flexibility in monitoring calls handled by CSRs. 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 99 percent of callers received 

courteous service in FY 2011. The use of clear and understandable language was reported in 99 percent of calls, and 

98.1 percent of calls met knowledge and accuracy standards. The goal of 95 percent was exceeded in each of these 

quality categories.

Across the 12 district offices, more than 67,000 written responses to routine inquiries were provided and 93 percent 

were sent within 30 days. In addition, 4,600 written priority inquiries were received and 95 percent of them were 

answered within 14 days. The office exceeded its goal of 90 percent for timely responses to written correspondence. 

Over 6,000 pieces of written correspondence were sampled in FY 2011. One-hundred percent of them met the 

standards for courtesy, 99 percent of them were written in clear and understandable language, and 96 percent met 

knowledge and accuracy standards. The goal of 95 percent was exceeded in all three of these quality categories.
9

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 2011, the Branch 

received a total of 6,739 incoming requests for reviews of the written record and oral hearings and issued a total of 

6,991 decisions.

In FY 2011, customer service and turnaround times remained constant for all of the measured areas. The Branch 

exceeded all established program goals in the three measured categories. The period of time between receipt of an 

appealed case file and the issuance of a remand or reversal before a hearing in FY 2011 was 55 days. In cases where 

claimants requested oral hearings, the time period between receipt of an appealed case file and the issuance of 

decision for FY 2011 was 168 days. For appeals initiated from a review of the written record, the time period for 

issuance of a decision was 81 days in FY 2011.

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; 1,022 telephone hearings were conducted in 

FY 2011. The Branch also continued to conduct proceedings via videoconferencing, increasing productivity 

associated with hearings. For FY 2011, the Branch conducted 728 hearings via teleconferencing. About 17 percent 

of the approximately 4,000 hearings scheduled during FY 2011 were actually held in person. The use of telephone 

and video hearings resulted in a speedier appellate process for FECA stakeholders and significant cost savings for 

the FEC program.

iFECS

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

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). In FY 2011, DFEC implemented two components of its major 

modernization initiative, and completed the design and development phase of the remaining component. This 

modernization initiative consisted of three distinct areas of functionality: an Integrated Voice Response (IVR) 

system; consolidation of district office scanning and data entry functions (3CI); and a web portal system for 

processing forms and submitting documents (ECOMP).

IVR Improvements and VOIP Phone System. In January of 2011, DFEC implemented the new IVR system in the 

first district office. The new system automates the process of providing self service data to every caller via an 

expanded menu of self help options. Through this significant enhancement of access to case data via telephony, the 

CA-110 (DFEC call record form) is automatically generated upon the completion of a call. This allows the program 

to maintain better control of incoming requests for information, and thereby assists with better management of 

prompt and comprehensive responsiveness to customers and stakeholders. The system provides monitoring and 

reporting capabilities for tracking workforce performance and supporting workload projections. The system employs

a Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) phone system that leverages the enterprise system with the Wage and Hour 

Division of DOL, and as a result reduces toll calls, relieving this cost burden from customers and stakeholders. The 

system was deployed to all DFEC district offices, and all district office staff (over 600 users) was trained within a six 

month period. The IVR system improved and enhanced telephonic access to FECA data for claimants and 

employing agencies and provides the DFEC staff with the telephonic tools needed to make telework possible for the 

majority of its workforce. 

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

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

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

previously carried out in each of the 12 DFEC district offices.
10

DFEC launched the central case create facility in late FY 2011. New claims for injury and illness, as well as 

compensation claims, are now submitted to and created by a central case create system run across two facilities. All 

claims for workplace injury and illness as well as attendant claims for wage-loss compensation are now processed via 

one address and fax number. The process of moving 12 case create and data entry operations to two facilities was 

complex and involved the realignment of personnel, the development of new IT processes, the creation of two new 

processing sites (in Jacksonville and Kansas City), and outreach and support to external stakeholders impacted by 

this change – namely injured Federal workers and their employing agencies. In addition to being centralized to one 

mailing address and fax number, the IT work flow for creating the forms once they have been submitted has been 

vastly improved through reengineering and automation. Claim forms which are faxed are no longer manually 

scanned; instead the images automatically appear in a fax processor which is linked with FEC’s case management 

system. This greatly reduces the labor costs associated with scanning documents received via fax. The 

centralization of case-create functions also allow for greater management oversight, leading to more consistent and 

accurate creation of claims.

Centralized case create provides DFEC with the tools and processes to create claims faster, more consistently, and 

with a greater degree of accuracy, thus providing superior customer service to all stakeholders. The quicker creation 

of claims allows injured workers to receive the benefits to which they are entitled in a more timely fashion. It also 

allows DFEC to identify and manage disability earlier.

Web Portal Forms Processing and Document Submission (ECOMP). For the ECOMP project, 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, and provide electronic submission of claims-related 

documents. The first component of ECOMP that will be available is the Web Enabled Electronic Document 

Submission feature. This will provide claimants, employers and medical providers the ability to electronically 

upload and submit documents to DFEC through its secure web portal. This ability to instantaneously communicate 

and submit documents to DFEC claims staff instead of mailing or faxing documents will save DFEC the processing 

fees that are currently associated with scanning mail into the case file system. Stakeholders will save on postage 

fees, and DFEC and stakeholders alike will enjoy a more expeditious exchange of information while still maintaining 

the security of personal information.

The remaining features of ECOMP will also enable all enrolled Federal employers and claimants to “e-file” DFEC 

forms and OSHA data at minimal costs to the agencies. ECOMP will utilize a web-based system that allows for the 

digital filing of compensation claims by Federal employees and will provide injured workers with a simple, 

convenient, and intuitive web-based system to file claim forms. Supervisors and agency reviewers will have the tools

to route, review and track claim forms as they are being processed. The system supports Section 508 compliance 

(accessibility integration for users with disabilities) and allows users to manage and respond to their claims during 

the claim processes in a safe and secure manner. The system also employs a sophisticated workflow process that can 

be edited and managed by the client agencies in order to deal with potential future requirement changes (such as 

department and personnel changes). Design for these remaining features is nearly complete and a controlled rollout 

is planned for early FY 2012.

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued to achieve improvements in operating efficiencies. During FY 2011, 

DFEC avoided $67 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 2011, the bill 

processing system was enhanced to include a Schedule II Drug program and an Anesthesia Fee Schedule. The Schedule 

II Drug program limits the use of narcotics that are used only for patients with end staged cancer pain. 
11

In FY 2011, the medical bill processing vendor processed 5.1 million bills and handled 654,334 telephone calls, meeting 

FECA communication goals. Authorizations for treatment were processed in an average of 2 work days and 99.9

percent of bills were processed in 28 days. Enrollment of 15,347 new providers brought the total of enrolled providers 

to 215,164.

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. After review of all comments submitted, the Final Rule was published on June 28, 2011, effective as of 

August 29, 2011. Even though this most recent update was not a wholesale revision of the existing regulations, 

consistent with past practice, the entire regulation was republished for ease of use by customers and stakeholders.

The new regulations reflected updates in 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. The FECA regulations were revised to reflect statutory 

and technological changes and to promote fairness and greater efficiency in the claims process. The Final Rule 

added 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 is now available for any FECA covered skin injury sustained on or after September 

11, 2001, that results in permanent impairment, thus allowing awards for employees such as those who sustained 

permanent impairment due to severe burns in the September 11 attacks and in war zones. 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 war zones. The new 

regulations provide OWCP explicit authority to contract with specific providers to provide services and appliances to

improve service and contain costs. OWCP also used existing legislative authority to create a new regulatory special 

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

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 FECA that would strengthen 

the program by enhancing incentives for injured employees to return to work; address retirement equity issues;

improve administration; and update and improve benefit payments in certain circumstances. Specifically, the DOL

reform proposal includes:

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

retirement age.

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

immediately after an injury.

• Paying schedule awards at a uniform rate concurrent with wage-loss payments.

• Eliminating augmented compensation and raising the basic benefit level for all claimants to 70 percent.

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

continuation of pay period. 

• Increasing outdated funeral expenses from $1,000 to $6,000. 

• Increasing benefit levels for facial disfigurement resulting from work injury.
12

• Identifying unreported earnings and retirement benefits through regular data base matching with the Social 

Security Administration.

• Creating a return-to-work plan for an employee where appropriate.

• Extending the continuation of pay period to 135 days for employees injured in a Zone of Armed Conflict.

During FY 2011, a number of bills in both the House of Representatives and the Senate also have proposed changes 

to the FECA and have incorporated various portions of the DOL proposal.

Program Evaluations and Studies

Independent Impact Evaluation of FECA Disability Management. In March 2011, DFEC received the final 

report of an impact evaluation of FECA Disability Management (DM) by SRA International, Inc. The impact 

evaluation consisted of on-site interviews and observations, and surveys of DFEC claims staff, as well as surveys of 

employing agency workers’ compensation staff and injured workers – all principal stakeholders involved with FECA 

Disability Management. The study was a third in a series conducted by SRA of DFEC’s Early Intervention and 

Disability Management activities.

The first recommendation centered on incorporating early intervention and team claim handling into FEC program’s 

procedures. Specific recommendations regarding nurse and vocational rehabilitation were implemented through 

directives, training modules, and DFEC Procedure Manual updates. A second set of SRA recommendations focused 

on effective and efficient communications in order to drive teamwork among all stakeholders in the FEC program, 

and action in this area was taken on many of these recommendations through the release of Procedural Manual 

chapters, clarification of privacy laws for the contractors and altering language in DFEC’s acceptance and case 

management letters to clearly communicate DFEC’s purpose and mission to injured Federal workers. A third series 

of recommendations centered on broadening timely work hardening and return-to-work options, and many of these 

recommendations were addressed as well in the Procedure Manual chapters’ updates.
13

1 OWCP expenditures; excludes DOL support costs, but includes “fair share” capital expenditures of $59.4 million in 

FY 2010 and $55.4 million in FY 2011, respectively.

2 Compensation, medical, and survivor benefits. 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT

FY 2010 FY 2011

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 865 838

Administrative Expenditures 1 $157.5 M $153.6 M

Cases Created 127,526 121,290

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 19,861 20,239

Total Compensation and Benefits (Actual Obligations) 2 $2,857.8 M $2,983.9 M

Number of Medical Bills Processed 5,176,571 5,300,000
14

BLACK LUNG

BENEFITS ACT

Introduction

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

of the Black Lung program in 2011. 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 (ACA)

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 were automatically entitled to benefits and did not need to establish 

that the miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis. Second, they restored a rebuttable presumption that a miner’s 

total disability or death was due to pneumoconiosis upon proof that the miner worked at least 15 years in qualifying 

coal mine employment and suffered from a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. The amendments 

apply to all claims filed after January 1, 2005, provided that the claim is pending on or after March 23, 2010.
15

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 2011, monthly and 

retroactive benefit payments totaled $193.0 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 2011 were $34.4 million. This includes 

payments of $6.7 million for diagnostic services, $26.2 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 196,000 bills were processed during the year.

Total Black Lung Part C program expenditures for all benefits in FY 2011 were $227.4 million, a decrease of $11.0

million from FY 2010. In FY 2011, benefits were provided from the Trust Fund to approximately 23,000 

beneficiaries each month.

In addition to Trust Fund expenditures, self-insured mine operators and insurance companies paid approximately 

$28.5 million to over 4,300 miners and survivors. An estimated $4.1 million was also paid in medical treatment 

benefits, for an estimated cost to the industry of $32.6 million during FY 2011.

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, 2011, there 

were 518 Federal black lung claims being offset due to concurrent state benefits. An additional 11 were being offset 

due to other Federal benefits, and 8 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 fiscal 

year DCMWC processed 28 fee petitions and paid approximately $0.4 million in attorneys’ fees from the Trust 

Fund.

In FY 2011, 1,431 claims were forwarded for formal hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges 

(OALJ) and 431 claims were forwarded on appeal to the Benefits Review Board (BRB). At the end of FY 2011, the 

OALJ had 2,106 claims pending while 544 were pending before the BRB.

In the Black Lung Part B program, nearly 23,000 active beneficiaries (with almost 2,000 dependents) were receiving 

nearly $16 million in monthly cash benefits as of September 30, 2011. Part B benefits in FY 2011 totaled nearly

$190 million. DCMWC completed more than 3,900 maintenance actions on Part B claims during the year, on 

average less than one week from notification.
16

In order to maintain the integrity of benefit payments and reduce the incidence of improper payments, the Black 

Lung program continued to match its beneficiary file to the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File on a 

weekly basis in order to be alerted of any deaths in the beneficiary population. DCMWC also continued to maintain 

the accuracy of payments by updating beneficiary information annually.

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 

0time 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 in the United States; 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 2011, the Trust Fund received a total of $622.9 million in tax revenues. An 

additional $11.2 million was collected from RMOs in interim benefits, fines, penalties, and interest. Total receipts of 

the Trust Fund in FY 2011 were nearly $742 million, including $108 million in repayable advances from the 

Department of the Treasury.

Total Trust Fund disbursements during FY 2011 were nearly $746 million. These expenditures included $227.4

million for income and medical benefits, $57.5 million to administer the program ($31.3 million in OWCP direct 

costs and $26.2 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), $60.2 million in one-year obligation payments to Treasury (for FY 2010 advances and interest on those 

advances), and $400.9 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.
17

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 2011, DCMWC avoided $546,122 in medical costs due to further improvements in the editing 

of bills.

In FY 2011, the vendor processed 195,753 Black Lung bills. A total of 99.9 percent of bills were processed within 

28 days. The number of telephone calls handled was 47,778. Enrollment of 3,224 new providers brought the total 

of enrolled Black Lung providers to 128,516.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in March 2010, DCMWC experienced 

an increase of 62 percent in new Federal Black Lung claims filed in FY 2010 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, which was 

steadily reduced through FY 2011. The increased filing of new claims continued during FY 2011, but at a rate 14 

percent below that of FY 2010.

One important consequence of the ACA 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.

In November 2010, DOL’s Fall Regulatory Agenda included RIN 1240-AA04, which announced a scheduled 

publication of implementing regulations in March 2012. Because the ACA amended the Black Lung Benefits Act 

itself, DCMWC had begun to process claims in accordance with the amended BLBA as soon as the ACA was 

enacted.

Government Performance Results Act

In FY 2011, 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 2011, 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 250 days.

Although the processing goal for the previous year had been 200 days, DCMWC was unable to meet it and 

determined that a new and more attainable goal was necessary, based on the large increase in the inventory of 

pending claims and the expectation of a higher than usual influx of new claims. New claims increased from 4,354 in 

FY 2009 to 7,044 in FY 2010 but then declined by 14 percent to 6,059 in FY 2011. These claim numbers include 

survivors’ conversions that are automatically awarded. Conversion claims numbered 444 in FY 2009, 662 in FY

2010, and 685 in FY 2011. The total inventory of claims pending a PDO decreased from 4,140 at the end of FY 

2010 to 3,605 at the close of FY 2011. DCMWC met the FY 2011 goal by achieving an average processing time of 

238 days.

Recognizing that meeting the GPRA goal for FY 2012 would be challenging, DCMWC focused on it by studying 

internal timeliness milestones, including a measurement of specific timeframes for medical testing. These measures 
18

would allow district directors to determine the length of time that claim actions are beyond the control of a district 

office, and provide more detailed information on case timeliness.

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 its performance in 

resolving claims. In FY 2011, 85.2 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. At the close of FY 2011, after consultations with a small group of active diagnostic physicians, a new 

physician’s report form had been developed and was pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget. 

The database regarding complaints about physicians had previously been developed and was maintained throughout 

FY 2011. New database measurement techniques were developed that enabled DCMWC to report on claimant 

representation at the district office level, and preliminary reports indicate that 31.2 percent of claimants were 

represented by an attorney at the time the claim was adjudicated, and another 15.3 percent were represented by lay 

representatives.

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 2011, DCMWC implemented several changes to the ASP that improved the user’s search capability, 

enhanced available information about coal mine operators, insurers, and self-insured operators, and improved 

database security.

Stakeholder and Regulatory Assistance

Compliance with Insurance Requirements. Section 423 of the BLBA requires that each coal mine operator 

subject to the BLBA secure payment of any benefits liability by qualifying as a self-insured employer or by 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 2011 estimates by DOL’s Mine Safety and Health Administration, there were approximately 617 

coal mine operators controlling about 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 2011, 79 active companies were authorized by 

the Secretary of Labor to self-insure. These self-insurance authorizations cover approximately 720 subsidiaries and 

affiliated companies.

The number of coal mining operations has remained relatively stable for the past few years, although the number of 

independent coal companies has been declining. Many insurance policies were cancelled during FY 2009 and FY 

2010, but the number of cancellations declined in FY 2011, when the Responsible Operator (RO) section sent letters 
19

to 145 coal mine operators after their insurance policies had been cancelled or had expired, reminding them of their 

statutory requirement to insure and stay insured against their potential liability for black lung benefits. Of these, 28 

companies responded and were found to either be insured or to not require insurance. Seventy-one were delivered 

with no response, and the remaining 46 were returned unclaimed 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 of the annual reporting requirements. These letters generated many questions from underwriters and resulted in 

improved compliance as well as improved relations with stakeholders. During FY 2011, DCMWC received 2,913 

reports of new or reissued policies.

By the end of FY 2011, DCMWC had developed an interface with the National Council on Compensation Insurance 

(NCCI) that will enable the program to receive insurance policy data on individual operators from NCCI for states 

that mandate such reporting. The reporting system is expected to be tested and activated early in FY 2012, and 

promises to make policy coverage more reliable and accurate than the current paper-based reporting system.

Compliance with Medical Diagnostic Requirements. 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 2011, 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. The program also focused on updating the list of approved diagnostic physicians by requesting current 

certification and specialty information in order to ensure that highly-qualified doctors were available to perform 

medical evaluations.

In FY 2011, DCMWC continued its longstanding commitment to ensuring that payments to beneficiaries requiring 

assistance are properly utilized. DCMWC continued to track district office actions in the appointment of 

representative payees due to physical or other incapacity and to evaluate these appointments and related expenditure 

reports within prescribed time frames to verify benefits paid on behalf of the beneficiary were used in his/her best 

interest. A pilot program of visiting beneficiaries and long-term care facilities to confirm that benefits were properly 

expended was carried out and evaluated during the year. DCMWC determined that contact with all beneficiaries 

through the annual update process was equally as effective as home visits, and more cost-efficient. 

Litigation

Courts of Appeals

During FY 2011, the courts of appeals published four decisions in cases arising under the BLBA. Important 

holdings from these cases are summarized below.

2010 Amendments to the BLBA; Fifteen-Year Rebuttable Entitlement Presumption – 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4). 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) amended the BLBA by reinstating Section 411(c)(4), which 

provides a rebuttable presumption that a miner’s total disability or death was due to pneumoconiosis upon proof that 

the miner worked at least 15 years in qualifying coal mine employment and suffered from a totally disabling 

respiratory or pulmonary impairment. The amended presumption applies to both miners’ and survivors’ claims filed 

after January 1, 2005, provided the claim is pending on or after the ACA’s March 23, 2010 enactment date. The 
20

party opposing entitlement may rebut the presumption by proving either the miner does not have pneumoconiosis or 

that his respiratory impairment does not arise out of coal mine employment or (in a survivor’s claim) that his death 

was unrelated to his coal mine employment. 

In FY 2011, two courts of appeals issued decisions addressing the application of amended Section 411(c)(4) to 

pending claims. In Keene v. Consolidation Coal Co., 645 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2011), the Seventh Circuit rejected an 

employer’s argument that applying amended Section 411(c)(4) to a pending claim is unconstitutional. In Keene, the 

Benefits Review Board’s decision affirming an ALJ’s denial of benefits to the survivor of a miner was pending 

before the Seventh Circuit when the ACA became effective. Because her claim met the ACA’s filing and pendency 

requirements, the claimant asked the court to vacate the denial and remand for consideration under Section 

411(c)(4). In response, the employer argued that application of the amendment to a pending claim violates the Fifth 

Amendment’s due process and takings clauses. The court held that retroactive application of the amendment does 

not violate the constitution. With respect to due process, the court rejected the employer’s assertion that the 

amendment has no rational purpose, holding that its purpose is to ease the burden of proving entitlement for 

deserving claimants. The court also noted that the amendment retroactively applies only to a limited category of 

claims, which balances the parties’ competing interests. The court also held the employer failed to demonstrate that 

the amendment resulted in an unconstitutional taking of its property. The court pointed out that the employer failed 

to provide any evidence regarding the impact of the legislation on its own finances; that a mandatory insurancepolicy endorsement makes carriers and self-insured coal mine operators liable for any obligations arising from 

legislative amendments; and that the amendment was not an improper governmental action because it is economic 

legislation with limited retroactive application. The court therefore remanded the claim for consideration of the 

Section 411(c)(4) presumption. 

In Morrison v. Tennessee Consolidated Coal Co., 644 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2011), a miner’s claim was pending in the 

Sixth Circuit when the ACA was enacted. Because the miner’s claim met the ACA’s filing date and pendency 

requirements, the court held the claim must be remanded because the intervening change in the BLBA required that 

the parties be provided the opportunity to introduce evidence addressing invocation, rebuttal, and their revised 

burdens of proof. In doing so, the court made several important observations: it emphasized that (1) the employer 

bears the burdens of production and persuasion in rebutting the presumption; (2) rebuttal requires an affirmative 

showing that the miner does not have pneumoconiosis or that his impairment is unrelated to coal mine employment; 

and (3) a negative x-ray alone is insufficient to rebut the presumption. 

Statute of Limitations – 30 U.S.C. § 932(f); 20 C.F.R. § 725.308. In order to comply with the BLBA’s statute of 

limitations, a miner must file a benefits claim within three years after a medical determination finding him totally 

disabled due to pneumoconiosis is communicated to him. In Helen Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP, 650 F.3d 248 

(3rd Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit addressed whether a physician’s diagnosis of totally disabling pneumoconiosis in 

an earlier claim triggers the statute of limitations for all later claims. In this case, the miner filed his first claim in 

1989. Although one physician diagnosed him with totally disabling pneumoconiosis, the ALJ credited contrary 

medical evidence and denied the claim. In 2006, the miner filed a second claim. Relying on the opinion diagnosing 

totally disabling pneumoconiosis from the first claim, the employer argued the second claim was barred because the 

miner filed it more than three years after receiving the favorable medical opinion in the first claim. The ALJ and 

BRB both rejected this argument. Aligning itself with three other courts of appeals, the Third Circuit agreed. It held 

the discredited opinion from the earlier claim was a “misdiagnosis” for purposes of all future claims and could not 

trigger the time-bar. The Court reasoned a narrow interpretation of the statute of limitations was consistent with 

Congressional intent favoring the liberal approval of claims, provides deserving miners with every opportunity to 

establish their entitlement given the progressive nature of pneumoconiosis, and is consistent with allowing a miner to 

file multiple claims provided his condition has changed after each claim’s denial. Because the ALJ was bound by the

final denial of the earlier claim, the court held the discredited opinion from that claim could not trigger the statute of 

limitations in the second claim.
21

Intervention – 20 C.F.R. § 725.360(d). The black lung program regulations provide that any individual may 

request that it be made a party to a black lung claim if its rights with respect to benefits would be prejudiced by a 

decision. In Crowe v. Zeigler Coal Co., 646 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2011) (Hamilton, J., concurring; Ripple, J., 

dissenting), a majority of the Seventh Circuit panel held that a surety for a bankrupt coal mine operator waited too 

long to file its request to intervene in a modification proceeding that the operator had initiated. The court denied the 

surety’s request to intervene, and overturned the results of the modification proceedings. The BLBA’s modification 

procedure allows a party to request reconsideration of a decision that has become final under certain circumstances. 

In 2001, the operator petitioned for modification of a decision awarding benefits to the miner; an ALJ denied the 

petition. The operator appealed to the BRB, but was liquidated in bankruptcy proceedings while the claim was 

pending. The BRB vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. In 2005, while the 

case was before the ALJ, DOL identified a surety bond that covered the miner’s claim, and informed the surety that it 

could intervene in the modification proceedings. Although the surety did not intervene at that time, the ALJ 

modified the miner’s award to a denial of benefits; the miner appealed, and the BRB remanded the case for further 

consideration. The surety did not file a motion to intervene in the modification proceedings until 2008. The ALJ 

permitted intervention, and again denied benefits to the miner. The BRB affirmed the denial, and the survivor of the 

now deceased miner appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The majority reversed the BRB’s decision. It held that the 

operator should have been dismissed because the bankruptcy liquidation order did not make it a party-in-interest to 

BLBA proceedings. The majority also concluded that by waiting to intervene three years after it had been notified of 

the proceedings, the surety prejudiced the miner’s interests because he was required to defend his award against a 

“phantom litigant.” The court reversed the BRB’s decision and reinstated the miner’s award. 

Benefits Review Board

During FY 2011, the Benefits Review Board (BRB) issued 494 decisions in cases arising under the BLBA, of which 

five were published. Important holdings from these cases are summarized below.

BRB Review of Interlocutory Orders. The BLBA requires the DOL to afford each miner-claimant the opportunity 

to receive a complete pulmonary examination, payable by the Trust Fund, to substantiate his claim. 30 U.S.C. § 

923(b). In Miller v. Assoc. Electric Cooperative, Inc., 24 BLR 1-233, 2011 WL 4455032 (Aug. 17, 2011), the 

employer appealed an interlocutory ALJ order remanding a claim for the district director to obtain a new pulmonary 

examination. The ALJ found the initial examination was incomplete and over five years old. In dismissing the 

operator’s appeal, the BRB held the ALJ’s order failed to satisfy two of the three grounds for accepting an 

interlocutory appeal: the order did not resolve a significant issue separate from the merits of the claim; and the order 

could be reviewed in a future appeal once the ALJ decided the merits of the claim.

Application of Stipulations in Subsequent Claims – 20 C.F.R. § 725.309(d)(4). A black lung program regulation 

promulgated in 2001 provides that a stipulation made in connection with a claim will be binding on that party in any 

subsequent claim. In Harris v. Cannelton Industries, Inc., 24 BLR 1-217, 2011 WL 1821519 (Apr. 29, 2011), the 

BRB considered whether a stipulation made in a claim adjudicated before the current regulation was promulgated

binds that party in a later claim. The employer stipulated that the claimant had pneumoconiosis arising out of coal 

mine employment for purposes of a claim filed in 1982; that claim was eventually finally denied. The miner filed a 

new claim in 2008. Based on the revised regulation, the ALJ concluded the operator’s prior stipulation was valid. 

The BRB vacated the ALJ’s decision. It held the stipulation was not binding because the revised regulation was not 

in effect when the operator entered into the stipulation.

2010 Amendments to the BLBA; Automatic Derivative Entitlement for Survivors – 30 U.S.C. § 932(l). The 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) 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 ACA. In FY 

2011, the BRB issued two published decisions interpreting this amendment. In Stacy v. Olga Coal Co., 24 BLR 1-

207, 2010 WL 6809226 (Dec. 22, 2010), the employer argued the automatic entitlement provision applies only if the 

miner who was awarded benefits filed his claim after January 1, 2005. Accepting the Director’s position, the Board 
22

held that the plain language of amended Section 422(l) mandates its application to survivors’ claims that are filed 

after January 1, 2005 and pending on or after the ACA’s March 23, 2010 enactment date. In Fairman v. Helen 

Mining Co., 24 BLR 1-225, 2011 WL 1821548 (Apr. 29, 2011), the Board, agreeing with the Director, held the 

amended Section 422(l) applies to affected claims even though it is inconsistent with other BLBA provisions. The 

Board reasoned that Congress made the amending legislation mandatory regardless of any conflicting language in 

other BLBA provisions.
23

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 

2010 and $26.1 million in FY 2011, 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 $39.2 million in FY 2010 and $32.6 million in FY 2011, respectively.

BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT

Part C 1 Part B 2

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 168 161 16 17

OWCP Administrative Expenditures 3 $32.7 M $31.3 M $4.9 M $5.1 M

Total Compensation and Benefit Payments 4 $238.4 M $227.4 M $213.8 M $189.5 M

Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 24,067 22,332 25,593 22,424

 Medical Benefits Only 1,315 1,084 N/A N/A

Responsible Coal Mine Operator Beneficiaries

in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 4,317 4,228 N/A N/A

 Medical Benefits Only 482 414 N/A N/A
24

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 $997.9 million in Calendar Year (CY) 2010, a 6.2 percent increase compared to CY 2009, which was largely 

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

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, total DOL expenditures for program operations and the administration of LHWCA and its 

extensions were $25.7 million, of which $11.4 million were the direct costs of OWCP. The remaining $14.3 million
25

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 95 people in the 

national office and 10 district offices.

During FY 2011, approximately 600 self-insured employers and insurance carriers reported 29,169 lost-time injuries 

under the LHWCA. At year's end, 14,942 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 2011. 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 11,510 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 $125.3 million in benefits in FY 2011, of which $112.9 million was for second 

injury (section 8(f)) claims. FY 2011 expenditures from the DCCA Special Fund totaled $9.5 million, of which $8.3

million was for second injury cases.

Government Performance Results Act

In FY 2011 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) and nonDBA 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, to the date the written notice of 

injury was received by a DLHWC district office. This GPRA goal for injury report timeliness for DBA cases was 

exceeded as 79 percent of the cases were filed within 30 days against the target of 75 percent. The non-DBA 

Employers First Report of Injury target also was exceeded. DLHWC’s year-end performance was 79 percent filed 

within 30 days against the target of 78 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 2011 the GPRA result for DBA cases was 56 

percent of the initial payments for compensation were issued within 30 days, versus the 58 percent target. This result 

reflects the continued challenges of operating in war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq. The non-DBA First Payment of
26

Compensation target for cases filed within 30 days was exceeded. DLHWC’s year-end performance was 85 percent 

against an annual target of 83 percent.

DBA cases continue to present significant challenges for the Longshore program. Due to language barriers, security 

issues, and limited access to injured workers and their dependents, DBA claims typically entail lengthy and more 

resource-intensive development for employers/carriers. Performance goals focus on the role these employers and 

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.

While DBA injury and death claims received have decreased from a peak of 15,141 in FY 2007 to 11,510 in FY 

2011, this is still well above the pre-Afghanistan and Iraq war total of 347 in FY 2002.

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. The most noteworthy of these is dispute resolution (previously a 

GPRA goal in FY 2001 – FY 2009). For example, in FY 2011, DLHWC district offices conducted 2,891 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. Training was provided to staff 

that mediate and resolve case disputes; improving mediation skills will help to reduce the percentage of cases that 

move to litigation. Despite these efforts, DLHWC did not achieve the targets set for dispute resolution due to a 

variety of factors, including staff shortages, increased workload at the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the 

weak economy impacting injured workers’ ability to return to work.

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 2011.

Claims Management and Compliance Assistance Activities

The number of DBA injury and death reports of civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, while lower than in FY 

2010, continued at a high level in FY 2011, with new cases totaling 8,675, of which 414 involved the death of a 

worker. Between September 1, 2001 and September 30, 2011, a total of 78,595 DBA cases were reported, 

including 2,871 deaths, of which 58,687 cases (2,535 deaths) originated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In response to this high 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 challenges presented in DBA claims arising from Iraq and 

Afghanistan. These challenges include the effective handling of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder claims, timely 

payment of benefits to foreign workers and their families in areas with cultural differences, communications 

obstacles, limited banking and infrastructure, and lack of available medical care. The major stakeholders, including 

insurance companies and employers, were invited to meetings throughout the year to discuss and resolve those 

issues, to discuss their performance in the timely reporting of injuries, timely payment of benefits, and to share best 

practices.

During FY 2011, DLHWC also initiated the extraction of various monthly reports from the Longshore data systems 
27

to provide assistance in the reviewing of performance results with industry executives on a quarterly basis. In 

addition, the Longshore program began sharing DBA carrier results with their larger customers, resulting in greater 

compliance with established performance standards.

DBA Reforms

The number and severity of DBA claims remain at high levels. During FY 2011, OWCP continued its DBA reform 

efforts begun in FY 2010 through an interagency working group to develop alternative approaches to the DBA that 

would both provide better service to injured workers and to provide that service at lower costs.

Automated Reporting Enhancements

During FY 2011, DLHWC finalized the implementation of an electronic insurance policy reporting system which 

allows carriers to report and update policy information automatically via a partnership with the National Council on 

Compensation Insurance and the other independent state reporting organizations. This system allows insurance 

companies to simply report via their typical state workers’ compensation reporting programs to DLHWC, replacing a 

cumbersome and costly paper reporting requirement. The system currently receives proof of coverage information 

for 46 states, and is working with the last four, all state run funds, to provide the information required.

Rehabilitation Activities

The slow economic recovery continued to have a negative impact on the Longshore Rehabilitation program during 

FY 2011. The job market continued in its depressed state throughout the country, making job placement for 

rehabilitation program participants more challenging. Despite these challenges, DLHWC was very successful during 

the year, achieving 105 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 also to the cooperation of the larger employers in 

returning their injured workers to modified duties, notably the shipyards and Non-Appropriated Fund 

Instrumentalities.

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 

the term ‘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. During FY 2011, 

progress included preparation of the Final Rules and roll-out plan, as well as initiation of the Departmental clearance 

process. The Final Regulations are expected to be published in early FY 2012.

Litigation

Courts of Appeals

During FY 2011, the courts of appeals published ten decisions in cases arising under the LHWCA and its extensions. 

Important holdings from these cases are summarized below.

Maximum Weekly Compensation Rate – 33 U.S.C. § 906(c). The maximum amount of weekly compensation an 

employee or survivor may receive is subject to a statutorily-imposed cap determined by the applicable year’s 

national average weekly wage. Each year, the Secretary of Labor calculates a new national weekly average for the 

fiscal year commencing October 1st of that year and ending September 30th of the following year. The maximum 

rate applies to employees “newly awarded compensation” and also to employees “currently receiving compensation” 
28

for permanent total disability or death. A beneficiary may not receive more than two hundred percent of the 

applicable national average weekly wage rate for each fiscal year of eligibility. In Roberts v. Director, OWCP, 625 

F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2010), cert granted Sup. Ct. No. 10-1399 (2011), the Court addressed the applicable initial 

maximum compensation rate for an employee “currently receiving” and “newly awarded” compensation. In this 

case, the employee ceased working in March 2002 after sustaining work-related injuries. The ALJ entered a 

compensation order in October 2006 directing payment of various periods of temporary and partial total and 

permanent disability. He found the applicable ceiling for all compensable periods was the maximum weekly rate for 

fiscal year 2002 when the employee first became disabled. The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision. On appeal, the 

employee argued that Section 6(c)’s “newly awarded compensation” language required the employer to pay 

compensation due for all periods at the maximum rate for fiscal year 2007 when the ALJ entered the compensation 

order. The Court rejected this argument. It first considered the different meanings “award” and “awarded” assume 

depending on their statutory context. The Court concluded the most logical interpretation of “newly awarded” for 

purposes of Section 6 is the date the employee first becomes disabled, not the date a compensation order is entered. 

It therefore affirmed the ALJ’s decision with the exception of the compensation due between July 12 and September 

30, 2005. The Court held “currently receiving compensation” means the amounts due for any period during which 

the employee is entitled to compensation even though the employer does not actually pay it. Because the employee 

was “currently receiving compensation” under this definition between July and September 2005, the Court held the 

ALJ should have applied the fiscal year 2005 maximum compensation rate. The Supreme Court granted the 

employee’s petition for certiorari in this case on September 27, 2011.

Interest on Past-Due Compensation – 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Although the LHWCA does not expressly authorize 

interest on an employee’s past due benefits, it has long been accepted that interest is owed. A Ninth Circuit panel 

has now endorsed the Director’s position that interest is properly calculated at the rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 

1961(a) for interest on judgments in federal civil cases. Price v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc., 627 F.3d 

1145 (9th Cir. 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), reh’g en banc granted (2011). Interest in such cases is calculated 

at a rate equal to the “the 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar week preceding the date of 

judgment.” The Court further held the Director may authorize simple, not compound, interest. A majority of the 

panel deferred to the Director’s “reasonable” litigating position as set forth in his brief to the Court. The concurring 

judge agreed with the holding, but suggested the Court should reconsider its precedent on deferring to agency 

litigating positions in view of recent Supreme Court precedent that distinguishes between judicial deference to an 

agency position as expressed in a regulation versus litigation. The Ninth Circuit granted the claimant’s petition for 

rehearing en banc on February 14, 2011. The en banc Court heard argument on the deference question, the interest 

issue, and the interpretation and application of section 6(c) regarding the proper maximum compensation rate. After 

oral argument, the Court placed the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Roberts case.

Burden of Proof – 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). In a hearing loss claim, the Fourth Circuit applied the holding of the 

Supreme Court in Director, OWCP v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994), that an employee fails to meet his 

burden of proof under the Administrative Procedure Act if the medical evidence for and against the existence of a

disability is equally probative. Ceres Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Green, 656 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2011). The employee 

alleged prolonged exposure to excessive noise and contended that he sustained compensable hearing loss. Two 

audiologists examined him and reached different conclusions. One audiologist diagnosed a 3.75 percent binaural 

hearing loss; the other audiologist found no significant hearing loss. The ALJ determined the audiologists had 

provided equally credible opinions. He therefore averaged the losses measured by the two experts and found the 

employee entitled to compensation for a 1.875 percent hearing loss. The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s decision. On 

appeal, the Court concluded the ALJ failed to adhere to Greenwich Collieries. In that decision, the Supreme Court 

held a LHWCA claimant must satisfy the burden of proof imposed by the APA: if the evidence is equally balanced, 

the claimant loses because he must establish entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, although the 

ALJ credited one expert’s opinion that the claimant sustained a compensable hearing loss, that evidence was offset 

by the ALJ’s acceptance of a second expert’s equally probative opinion that the claimant did not suffer a workrelated injury leaving the evidence in equipoise.

Timeliness – 33 U.S.C. § 913. An employee must file a claim within one year after the injury under the LHWCA 
29

and its extensions (in this case, the Defense Base Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1651 et seq.). The Second Circuit has joined 

seven other circuits in holding that a claim must be filed within one year from when the employee knows or should 

know that her injury is work-related and may impair her earning power. Dyncorp Int’l v. Director, OWCP 

(Mechler), 658 F.3d 133 (2nd Cir. 2011). The employee, a former Kansas corrections officer, contracted with the 

employer to work overseas for three years. She was assigned to work at a Kosovo detention center operated by the 

United States government and commenced work in 2004. On her first day at the facility, a United Nations soldier 

shot her and five other employees, killing three. She returned to light-duty work only two days later, but along with 

physical effects of the shooting, also experienced insomnia, troubling thoughts, and anxiety. Two years after the 

shooting incident, the employee filed a disability claim in April 2006. In August 2006, the employee was diagnosed 

with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The ALJ found the claim untimely and denied it. The ALJ relied 

on a 2004 psychiatric examination as evidence the employee should have known her psychological problems might 

impair her wage-earning capacity. The BRB reversed, holding that the ALJ’s conclusion was not supported by 

substantial evidence. On appeal, the Court concluded the employee’s 2004 examination, therapy, and medications 

for anxiety would not alert a reasonable mind to the existence of an actionable claim for disability benefits because 

“participation in counseling, anti-anxiety drugs and sleeping aids are common in our society.” Because the employee 

filed her claim within one year after she possessed sufficient knowledge of her disability, the Court affirmed the 

Board’s ruling that her claim was timely.

Maritime Situs and Status – 33 U.S.C. §§ 902(3), 903(a). The LWHCA covers an employee’s injury if he satisfies 

both the situs and status requirements. “Situs” means the actual navigable waters of the United States and certain 

areas adjoining the waterfront that are used for maritime activities. Maritime “status” requires the employee to spend 

at least some part of his working at a covered site performing tasks that are essential to maritime commerce. In 

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board (Smith), 629 F.3d 322 (3rd Cir. 2010), the employee sustained 

work-related injuries while repairing machinery at a garage near stockpiled coal. The Court concluded he met both 

requirements for LHWCA coverage. Although the employee did not exclusively repair and service machinery, the 

Court considered his work integral to the employer’s overall business needs. Furthermore, the employee did not lose 

his maritime status when the employer used the machinery for non-loading purposes. With respect to the situs prong, 

the Court held the garage was an “adjoining area” because it had a direct role in the loading process. Finally, the 

Court held the employer’s garage had a sufficient functional and geographic nexus with the loading process on the 

river to make it a covered situs. The Court affirmed the award.

Attorney Fees – 33 U.S.C. § 928(b). The Fifth Circuit agreed with the Director that an employer may not avoid 

liability for an employee’s attorney fee by paying compensation at the rate specified in the District Director’s 

informal conference recommendation while simultaneously pursuing a formal hearing in order to challenge the 

District Director’s recommendation regarding its liability for additional payments. Carey v. Ormet Primary 

Aluminum Corp., 627 F.3d 979 (5th Cir. 2010). The employer and employee disagreed over whether premium pay 

should be included in calculating the employee’s average weekly wage and the amount of compensation he should 

receive. The District Director held an informal conference, failed to resolve the dispute, and issued a memorandum 

recommending the employer continue paying at the existing rate. The employer rejected the District Director’s 

recommendation, but voluntarily continued paying compensation at the contested rate. An ALJ resolved the average 

weekly wage dispute in the employee’s favor but ordered the employer to pay an amount less than either that 

recommended by the District Director or that paid by the employer pending the ALJ decision. Neither party 

appealed that decision. Thereafter, the employee’s attorney requested a fee payable by the employer. The employer 

contested its liability for the attorney fee. The ALJ and BRB concluded that section 28(b) precluded shifting fee 

liability to the employer because the employee had failed to obtain an award greater than the amount the employer 

was willing to pay after the informal recommendation. The Fifth Circuit reversed the decisions below. It held that 

liability for the employee’s attorney fee shifted to the employer under section 28(b) because it had forced the 

employee to retain counsel and defend his rights while eventually obtaining a favorable decision. The Court read the 

phrase “amount paid or tendered by the employer” to mean “the additional compensation, if any, to which ... [the 

employer] believe[s] the employee is entitled.” Thus, section 28(b) is satisfied if the employee obtains a 

compensation award in excess of what the employer was willing to pay. 
30

Modification -- 33 U.S.C. § 922. The Fourth Circuit addressed an issue of first impression: whether the one-year 

period for seeking modification is triggered by the employer’s payment of medical benefits. Wheeler v. Newport 

News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 637 F.3d 280 (4th Cir. 2011). The employee injured both knees in the course 

of her employment. The employer paid her time-limited permanent partial disability compensation under the section 

8(c)(2) schedule. More than one year after the employer’s last disability-compensation payment, the employer 

voluntarily paid the employee’s medical providers for performing total knee replacement surgery. In light of her 

medical deterioration, the employee sought additional disability compensation by filing a request for modification 

under section 22 of the Act. Section 22 allows an adjudication officer to “review a compensation case” based on a 

change in conditions at “any time prior to one year after the date of the last payment of compensation[.]” The Court 

held that voluntary payment for the employee’s surgery was not a “payment of compensation” within the meaning of 

section 22. Although the Court believed section 22 was ambiguous on this point, it found its conclusion compelled 

by the statute’s general scheme and purpose. Thus, because the employee did not file her modification request 

within one year of the employer’s last payment of disability compensation, the Court held that her request was timebarred. The Supreme Court denied the employee’s petition for certiorari in this case on November 28, 2011.

Presumption of Compensability – 33 U.S.C. § 920(a); Death Benefits – 33 U.S.C. § 909. In Albina Engine & 

Machine v. Director, OWCP (McAllister), 627 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit clarified its view on the 

proper allocation of the burden of proof among multiple potentially liable employers in applying the “last responsible

employer rule” and the section 20(a) presumption. The employee was exposed to asbestos in the work-place that 

eventually led to his death from mesothelioma. His exposure could be linked to three different employers, so his 

widow brought claims against each. Section 20(a) establishes a rebuttable presumption that a claim is compensable. 

This presumption varies the usual burden of persuasion under the APA as resting solely on the moving party. The 

“last employer rule” imposes the entire liability to pay compensation on the employer who most recently exposed the 

employee to injurious work-place conditions. The Ninth Circuit held that in order for the section 20(a) presumption 

to shift the burden of proof to a particular employer, the claimant, as the moving party, must first make out a prima 

facie case to invoke the presumption against that employer individually. Any other rule shifting the burden of proof 

to the non-moving party violates section 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act and Greenwich Collieries. 

Accordingly, the Court concluded the most logical grounds for allocating liability required the fact-finder to analyze 

the evidence separately and sequentially as to each employer, with the most recent employer claimed against 

analyzed first. Because the most recent named employer failed to rebut the presumption, the Court held it must bear 

full responsibility for payment of the employee’s claim. 

Benefits Review Board

During FY 2011, the Benefits Review Board (BRB) issued 198 decisions in cases arising under the LHWCA, of 

which 18 were published. Important holdings from these cases are summarized below.

Settlements – 33 U.S.C. § 908(i). In Bomback v. Marine Terminal Co., et al., 44 BRBS 95, 2010 WL 4539434

(Oct. 29, 2010), the BRB addressed the criteria for a valid settlement of the injured employee’s medical benefits. 

The employee sustained several work-related back and knee injuries over time. He and his employer’s insurer 

settled the claims, including the claim for future medical benefits. As part of the settlement application, the parties 

must submit documentation estimating the employee’s need for future medical treatment and its costs. An ALJ must 

then review the application and determine whether it provides adequate compensation in view of the accompanying 

documentation. In this case, the ALJ summarily approved the agreed amount for future medical benefits without 

providing any analysis of its adequacy. Agreeing with the Director, the BRB determined the parties had failed to 

submit the required estimates notwithstanding evidence the employee may need future surgeries and treatment. The 

BRB therefore held the settlement application was defective and vacated the ALJ’s summary approval.

Settlements and Compensation Orders – 33 U.S.C. §§ 908(i), 915(b), 916. An employee may not waive his 

statutory right to compensation, 33 U.S.C. § 915(b); a release from liability or commutation of compensation is 

invalid except as provided by the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. § 916. The sole exception to these prohibitions in sections 15 

and 16 is a settlement agreement, pursuant to section 8(i), 33 U.S.C. § 908(i), which must comport with the statute 

and regulations concerning the form and content of settlements. It is also routine practice under the LHWCA for 
31

parties to agree to the issuance of a compensation order based on stipulations. Such an agreed compensation order 

must, like any other compensation order, be in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence. In 

Aitmbarek v. L-3 Communications, 44 BRBS 115, 2010 WL 5509969 (Dec. 23, 2010), the BRB addressed the 

distinction between an agreed compensation order and settlements. The employee was injured twice while working 

for the employer as a linguist in Iraq. The private parties stipulated to certain facts and requested the ALJ to issue a 

compensation order based on those stipulations. The employer also informed the ALJ that the parties specifically 

sought a compensation order and not his approval of a Section 8(i) agreement. The ALJ issued the requested order 

without making the necessary factual and legal findings. On appeal by the Director, the BRB vacated the ALJ’s 

order. Because the ALJ had failed to make any findings, the BRB concluded his order was not supported by 

substantial evidence or in accordance with law. It remanded the case for the ALJ to accept evidence, make findings, 

and issue a new order.

Maritime Situs – 33 U.S.C. § 903(a). To be covered by the LHWCA, an employee must work on a covered situs, 

i.e., the navigable waters of the United States or one of the adjoining areas enumerated in the statutory definition. 

The Fifth Circuit has held that a covered adjoining area must be defined by its proximity to navigable waters and the 

extent of its use in maritime activities rather than labels, fence lines, etc. In Zepeda v. New Orleans Depot Services, 

Inc., 44 BRBS 103, 2010 WL 5509967 (Dec. 3, 2010), the employee repaired containers that were used to transport 

cargo by vessel, rail, and truck. He worked at a yard that did not directly adjoin navigable waters, but the waterfront 

was accessible by road. The ALJ found the yard met the Fifth Circuit’s test for an adjoining site: it had a 

geographic nexus to navigable waters because of its accessibility to the waterfront, and a maritime function because 

some of the containers were used for loading and unloading ships. The BRB affirmed this finding. It held the 

employer’s yard was in the vicinity of navigable waters even if it did not directly adjoin those waters. It further held 

the employee’s container-repair work was a maritime activity despite the fact the yard itself was not actually used for 

loading or unloading ships. Because the employer’s yard was near navigable water and associated with repair 

activities involving containers used for maritime work, the BRB concluded the employee worked at a covered site. 

The case is pending before the Fifth Circuit.

Duration of award for permanent partial disability – 33 U.S.C. § 908(c)(21). An injured employee is entitled to 

permanent partial disability compensation “payable during the continuance of partial disability.” Agreeing with the 

Director, the BRB held an ALJ may not limit the duration of an injured employee’s permanent partial disability 

award because, prior to his injury, he had intended to continue work at that job only for a specific period of time. 

Raymond v. Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC, 45 BRBS 5, 2011 WL 1752169 (Apr. 28, 2011). The employee 

contracted to perform security work in Afghanistan for the employer; his contract ran for one year and could be 

renewed in one-year increments. He sustained a work-related injury overseas, but completed his one-year stint and 

returned to the United States. At the hearing, the employee testified that, but for his injury, he would have renewed 

his overseas contract for two or three years, and then quit. The ALJ found the employee should not receive disability 

compensation indefinitely since he had expressed an intention to work overseas at a higher wage only for a defined 

time. Instead, the ALJ awarded compensation covering two distinct periods at different wage rates. For the first 

period, the ALJ assumed the employee would have renewed his overseas contract and continued working for higher 

earnings as long as he had intended. The ALJ used the statutory formula to compute the appropriate compensation. 

For the second time period, after the employee indicated he would have discontinued his high wage overseas 

employment, the ALJ awarded only a Rambo nominal award of $1.00 per week based on the fact that the employee’s 

post-injury domestic earnings were comparable to his pre-deployment domestic earnings. On appeal, the BRB 

reversed this portion of the ALJ’s decision. It held the employer must pay the employee’s permanent partial 

disability compensation at the statutory rate for as long as he remained disabled. The BRB further held that rate 

must remain in effect unless a party obtains a different compensation rate by requesting modification pursuant to 33

U.S.C. § 922. The case is pending before the Ninth Circuit. 

Applicable Circuit Law under the Defense Base Act – 42 U.S.C. § 1653(b). The Defense Base Act (DBA) 

extends LHWCA coverage to work performed by civilian employees of government contractors working outside the 

United States. For judicial proceedings reviewing administrative decisions in DBA claims, the DBA confers 

jurisdiction on the federal judicial district “wherein is located the office of the [District Director] whose 
32

compensation order is involved.” In McDonald v. AECOM Technology Corp., 45 BRBS 45, 2011 WL 4701738

(Sept. 19, 2011), the BRB addressed which Circuit Court law applies to ALJ and BRB decisions involving DBA 

claims. The employee developed medical problems while working in Afghanistan. The ALJ awarded benefits and 

approved a fee for the employee’s attorney. He applied Ninth Circuit law to resolve the fee dispute because 

OWCP’s San Francisco District office had processed the claim. After the ALJ approved the fee, the San Francisco 

District Director filed and served the compensation order awarding the fee. On appeal to the BRB, the employer 

argued the Fifth Circuit’s law should apply. It based that contention on the grounds: (1) the District Director office 

closest to the employee’s Oklahoma residence was located in Houston; and (2) dicta in Ninth Circuit case law 

suggested that the determining factor was the location of the ALJ’s office that decided the case and that was in 

Louisiana. The employee and the Director urged the BRB to apply Ninth Circuit law because the San Francisco 

District Director filed and served the ALJ’s decision. The BRB agreed with the Director and the employee. Citing 

the plain language of the DBA, the BRB held the location of the District Director office that filed and served the 

ALJ’s order determines the applicable federal law. The BRB therefore affirmed the ALJ’s reliance on Ninth Circuit 

law. The case is pending before the Ninth Circuit.

1 Direct administrative costs to OWCP only, including Trust Funds; excludes DOL costs of $15.2 million in FY 2010 

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT

FY 2010 FY 2011

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 87 95

Administrative Expenditures 1 $13.4 M $13.5 M

Lost-Time Injuries Reported 31,628 29,169

Total Compensation Paid 2 $1,084.8 M $1,137.5 M

 Wage-Loss and Survivor Benefits $768.8 M $808.6 M

 Medical Benefits $316.0 M $328.8 M

Sources of Compensation Paid

 Insurance Companies 2 $551.7 M $589.4 M

 Self-Insured Employers 2 $388.1 M $408.5 M

 LHWCA Special Fund $128.1 M $125.3 M

 DCCA Special Fund $9.4 M $9.5 M

 DOL Appropriation $2.0 M $1.9 M
33

and $14.3 million in FY 2011, respectively, for support provided by the OALJ, BRB, SOL, and OIG.

2 Figures are for CY 2009 and CY 2010, 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.
34

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 uranium mining work environment. 

On July 31, 2011, the Department of Labor (DOL) marked the tenth 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) 2011, the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation (DEEOIC) has awarded compensation and medical benefits totaling over $7.4 billion under both Parts 

B and E of the EEOICPA. During this time, 72,998 employees or their families have received over $6.5 billion in 

compensation and over $907 million in medical expenses associated with the treatment of accepted medical 

conditions. Part B compensation has totaled more than $4.1 billion (since 2001) while Part E compensation has 

totaled more than $2.4 billion (since 2005).

In FY 2011 alone, 7,214 employees or their families received $573.5 million in Part B compensation. In addition, 

4,233 employees or their eligible survivors received $338.6 million in Part E compensation. A total of $318.1

million was paid in covered medical benefits in FY 2011 under both Parts B and E of the EEOICPA, bringing total 

benefits to over $1.2 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.
35

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 
36

that it was “at least as likely as not” that work-related exposure to a toxic substance was a significant factor in

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, as well as any illness, injury, impairment, or disease shown by 

medical evidence to be a consequence of an accepted Part E 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 2011, DOL spent $51.5

million under Part B and $73.7 million under Part E to administer the EEOICPA. These funds supported 241 fulltime equivalent (FTE) staff for Part B and 230 FTE for Part E. Additional funds in the amount of $0.2 million under 

Part B and $0.8 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 2011, DEEOIC continued to receive a substantial number of new claims, creating a total of 6,303 new cases 

(9,981 claims) for living or deceased employees under Part B, and 5,674 new cases (7,441 new claims) under Part E. 
37

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

(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 SEC is a mechanism by which claimants, who 

have one of the 22 cancers identified in the law, receive a presumption that their cancer is the result of their 

employment; such a presumption expedites the adjudication process by eliminating the need for a dose 

reconstruction. The EEOICPA 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, 2011, NIOSH had added 78 additional 

classes of employees to the four statutory classes in the SEC, which combined represent workers at 62 facilities. 

During FY 2011, NIOSH added 13 classes of employees at the following facilities: Blockson Chemical Company in 

Joliet, Illinois; Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa; Revere Copper and Brass in Detroit, Michigan; Simonds Saw and 

Steel Company in Lockport, New York; BWX Technologies, Inc., in Lynchburg, Virginia; Texas City Chemicals, 

Inc., in Texas City, Texas; Linde Ceramics Plant in Tonawanda, New York; Grand Junction Operations Office in 

Grand Junction, Colorado; Wah Chang Facility in Albany, Oregon; Norton Company in Worcester, Massachusetts; 

Vitro Manufacturing in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and 

General Electric Company in Evendale, Ohio.

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, 2011, 78 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 2011, the FAB conducted 1,371 reviews of the written 

record and oral hearings for 1,284 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,
38

decisions are 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 2011, DEEOIC district offices issued 13,010 Part B claim-level recommended decisions and 11,444 Part 

E claim-level recommended decisions. Further, the FAB issued 13,337 Part B claim-level final decisions and 10,904

Part E claim-level final decisions. DOL approved benefits in 54.5 percent of covered Part B claims and 53.1 percent 

of covered Part E claims that were issued a final decision during FY 2011. 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 the EEOICPA and 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 2011, as additional classes of 

employees were added by the Secretary of HHS to the SEC, DOL sponsored six town hall meetings and traveling 

resource centers in: Amherst, New York (meetings in both October 2010 and July 2011); Joliet, Illinois; Ames, 

Iowa; Grand Junction, Colorado; and Galveston, Texas. During these town hall meetings and traveling resource 

centers, DEEOIC staff presented details about new SEC classes at Bethlehem Steel, Blockson Chemical Company, 

Ames Laboratory, the Grand Junction Operations Office, Linde Ceramics Plant, Simonds Saw and Steel Company, 

and Texas City Chemicals, Inc. Over 400 individuals attended these town hall meetings and traveling resource

centers, and as a result of these meetings resource center staff submitted 62 new claims to DOL for adjudication. 

Further, in response to large attendance at past town hall meetings held in the Navajo Nation, DEEOIC conducts bimonthly 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, the Office of the Ombudsman for the EEOICPA,

HHS’ NIOSH, and the Office of the Ombudsman to NIOSH under the EEOICPA, 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 2011, DEEOIC staff sponsored a joint outreach task group

town hall meeting and traveling resource center in Bolingbrook, Illinois, which more than 100 individuals attended. 

The purpose of this meeting was to assist former Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and Argonne National 

Laboratory East workers with any questions they may have concerning the EEOICPA or how to file a claim for 

benefits. As a result of the event, resource center staff submitted 10 new claims to DOL for adjudication. DEEOIC 

staff also attended additional joint outreach task group town hall meetings in Kansas City, Missouri; Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee; and Aiken, South Carolina, and at the request of the Office of the Ombudsman, 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 2011 include meetings with local governments 

and chambers of commerce, presentations to personnel at covered facilities and unions, and other community 

initiatives. Additionally, during FY 2011 the district offices received 149,497 phone calls and the FAB received 

5,187 phone calls. Nearly all calls that required a return call were returned within two business days.

During FY 2011, DEEOIC issued press releases informing individuals who worked at covered EEOICPA facilities 

where less than 50 claims have been filed in Chicago, Massachusetts, Missouri, Alabama, Ohio, and Wisconsin of 
39

the benefits that may be available to them under the EEOICPA. Altogether this effort included notification to 

potential claimants at 75 facilities.

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. 

During FY 2011, eight policy bulletins and eleven 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 2011, in an effort to be as accessible and transparent as possible to the claimant community, DEEOIC

staff continued to add new information to its website, providing the public with additional information concerning 

DEEOIC’s administration of the EEOICPA. This new information included the posting of the following three new 

brochures on DEEOIC’s website: “Eligibility for Compensation and Benefits under the EEOICPA,” which describes 

the eligibility requirements and compensation available under Parts B and E of the EEOICPA; “What Happens After 

an EEOICPA Recommended Decision?” which explains the actions a claimant should take after receiving a 

recommended decision from one of DEEOIC’s four district offices; and “Agency Role/Programs for Assisting DOE 

Nuclear Weapons Workers,” which describes what the joint outreach task group is and the role of each of the 

members. DEEOIC staff also updated the following brochures to reflect current policies and procedures: “Chronic 

Beryllium Disease and Beryllium Sensitivity under the EEOICPA;” “How Do I Qualify for an Impairment Award

Under Part E of the EEOICPA;” and, “Wage-Loss Benefits Under Part E of the EEOICPA”.

In June 2011, DEEOIC launched an online web-based page, the Claimant Status Page, which allows claimants access 

to limited claims information from the Energy Case Management System (ECMS) electronic claims database utilized 

by DEEOIC claims examiners. The Claimant Status Page allows a claimant to access certain information contained 

in his or her claim under the EEOICPA, including claimed medical condition(s), worksite locations, most recent 

claim actions, payment information, and current case location. Claimants are provided with an individual claim 

identification number to gain access to their claim information and to prevent access by other individuals to a 

claimant’s specific claim information.

Web-Ex Video Conferencing System. During FY 2011, the DEEOIC introduced Web-Ex, which is a Cisco

Systems platform that provides live stream video conferencing capability, as a means of upgrading and modernizing 

the administration of the EEOICPA. Web-Ex allows the DEEOIC Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) hearing 

representatives to conduct oral hearings in “real time” with DEEOIC claimants across the country, without traveling. 

DEEOIC has established Web-Ex systems in all four district offices, the National Office FAB, and the National 

Office Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In addition, DEEOIC has established Web-Ex systems in four of the 

eleven resource centers: Oak Ridge, Paducah, Portsmouth, and Savannah River; with plans to expand to other 

resource centers in Hanford, New York, and Las Vegas. Because the FAB hearing representatives are no longer 

required to travel to locations near Web-Ex sites, this has resulted in huge savings in terms of travel costs and 

person-hours.

Moreover, DEEOIC is also using the Web-Ex system to conduct its bi-weekly staff meetings (with all district office 
40

and FAB managers) and to continue claims examiner training in the areas of medical development, Site Exposure 

Matrices, and toxicology. 

Unified Procedure Manual. During FY 2011, the DEEOIC continued to evaluate and assess its policies and 

procedures contained in the EEOICPA Procedure Manual, which contains an overview of the DEEOIC program and 

provides policies and procedures for the processing and adjudication of claims under the EEOICPA. Throughout FY 

2011, the DEEOIC updated portions of the Procedure Manual, incorporating updates in policy directives, when 

appropriate. The EEOICPA Procedure Manual is available to the public via 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 2011, the RC contractor had 61 employees at 11 sites to assist 

claimants in completing necessary claim forms and gathering documentation that can support their claims. 

The RC staff assists with initial claim-filing and Part E occupational history development and forwards all claims and

associated documentation to the appropriate district offices. During FY 2011, the RCs helped claimants file 12,446 

claims, received more than 91,000 telephone calls, conducted nearly 69,000 follow-up actions with claimants, and 

completed 5,600 occupational history interviews. RC staff also supported DEEOIC’s six town hall meetings and 

traveling resource centers as well as Joint Outreach Task Group events 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 

2011, the RC staff made nearly 25,000 contacts related to medical bills. RC staff also enrolled 279 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, continued 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 2011, CPWR provided responses to 901 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.

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) Database. In FY 2011, 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.

As of September 30, 2011, SEM housed information on 11,153 toxic substances/chemicals used at 116 DOE sites, 

4,170 uranium mines, 47 uranium mills, and 17 uranium ore buying stations covered under the EEOICPA. During 

FY 2011, the SEM project team updated 56 of 116 SEM matrices for DOE facilities and added a total of 1,565 new 

toxic substances to the SEM database as a result of public and worker input.

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 2011

allowed NLM to complete 673 new health/chemical profiles for its Haz-Map database. 

In FY 2011, DEEOIC also completed its expansion of the public SEM website, an effort that began in May 2010. 

By making the information in the SEM public, DEEOIC is making the Part E process more transparent. The final six 

additions to the public website made this year include the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore, 
41

California), the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (also known as the East Tennessee Technology Park, or K-25, in 

Oak Ridge, Tennessee), the Y-12 Plant (Oak Ridge, Tennessee), the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah, 

Kentucky), the Pantex Plant (Amarillo, Texas), and the Pinellas Plant (Clearwater, Florida).

During FY 2011, DEEOIC also sought an agreement, which was reached right at the end of the year, with the 

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform a scientific review of the Site Exposure Matrices. Under the 

agreement, NAS will convene a panel of experts to review the scientific accuracy of occupational disease links to 

toxic substances present at various locations within EEOICPA-covered facilities. The experts will evaluate other 

exposure databases to identify ways to augment disease associations. They also will evaluate the National Institutes 

of Health’s Haz-Map database, which is an occupational toxicology system that links jobs and hazardous tasks with 

occupational diseases and their symptoms, and provides information for the SEM website. NAS will compile its 

findings into a report. The review period, including producing the report, is expected to last 18 months. 

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. During FY 2011, development continued for the 

creation of the integrated, modernized and expanded mission-critical case management system. The new unified 

system, called the Energy Compensation System (ECS), will replace the separate Part B and Part E management 

systems that have supported DEEOIC’s users since Part B’s (2001) and Part E’s inception. ECS will eventually 

replace the existing ECMS during FY 2012. These enhancements ensure the effectiveness of administering 

compensation benefits to claimants to once again meet and exceed strategic and operational goals.

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:

• DEEOIC began to measure average days for completion of initial processing of claims in FY 2007, as that 

measure is a good indicator of overall effectiveness in delivering initial services to claimants. During FY 2010, 

a goal of 120 days was set for Part B claims and DEEOIC exceeded this goal by taking an average of 97 days to
42

process initial claims. In FY 2011, a goal of 110 days was set, and DEEOIC exceeded this goal by taking an 

average of only 91 days to process initial claims under Part B of the EEOICPA.

• During FY 2010, a target of 160 days was set for Part E claims, and DEEOIC exceeded this goal by taking an 

average of 125 days to process initial claims. In FY 2011, a target of 145 days was set. Again, DEEOIC 

exceeded its goal as 101 days on average were needed to process initial claims under Part E of the EEOICPA. 

• 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, 95 percent of Part B and Part E decisions in FY 2011 were within the program standards, in excess of the 

goal of 92 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 2011. Timely and accurate medical bill processing is critical in the administration of the EEOICPA. 

In FY 2011, DEEOIC avoided $10 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 2011, the bill processing vendor had processed 412,779 EEOICPA bills and handled 44,704 

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 4,224 new providers brought the total of enrolled 

providers for EEOICPA services to 130,408.

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.

In FY 2011, DEEOIC analyzed the full results of the survey in order to further enhance internal and external 

processes and to improve the delivery of benefits and other services to claimants. Based on the results of the 

customer satisfaction survey, DEEOIC initiated the following changes during FY 2011:

• Updated all DEEOIC program brochures to improve the communication of information.

• Created fact sheets describing the hearing process and rights to object that accompany recommended decisions 

to deny.

• Updated wage-loss and impairment handouts.

• Revised the DEEOIC recommended decision format to include an analysis section.

• Completed medical bill training for the DEEOIC District Office staff.
43

• Changed DEEOIC program goals to include a new measure of time between the filing of a claim and the 

issuance of a final decision, in an effort to shorten the claim process.

• Added a new performance measure to claims examiners’ performance standards providing a framework for 

feedback and follow-up with claimants.

In FY 2011, the DEEOIC Medical Director reviewed the credentials of the current network of medical specialists 

who assist in the review of complex EEOICPA cases. The updated DMC credentials were posted on the DEEOIC 

website. The Medical Director continued the review 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 continued quarterly DMC teleconferences which addressed 

procedural and medical issues, new guidance, and other issues of common interest to the DMCs. The DMC 

handbook was updated and served as a resource for DMCs.

Also in FY 2011, DOL’s Solicitor’s Office advised DEEOIC it could no longer use a Memorandum of Agreement 

for DMC services and recommended the use of a formal contract to engage DMC services. A solicitation was sought 

for a contractor to administer DMC services.

Litigation

DEEOIC strives in every case to administer the Energy program in accordance with the law and governing 

regulations. During FY 2011, one U.S. District Court published a decision issued in a case arising under Part E of 

EEOICPA. Important points from that case are summarized below.

Finality and the 60-day Limitation Period for Part E. In Barrie v. U.S. Department of Labor, 805 F.Supp.2d 

1140 (D. Colo. 2011), the plaintiff filed a petition seeking court review of the denial of his claim for wage-loss 

benefits under Part E of EEOICPA. FAB had denied the plaintiff’s claim on September 30, 2010, and also denied 

his request for reconsideration on March 3, 2011. The plaintiff next requested that his claim be reopened, but this 

request was denied by the Director of DEEOIC on April 12, 2011. The plaintiff filed his petition with the court on 

May 3, 2011, which was more than 60 days after FAB had denied his request for reconsideration of its earlier 

decision denying his wage-loss claim, but less than 60 days after his reopening request was denied, and argued that: 

(1) FAB’s September 30, 2010 decision did not become “final” until his subsequent request to have his wage-loss 

claim reopened was denied on April 12, 2011, and therefore the time for filing his petition with the court did not 

begin to run until that later date; and (2) the 60-day filing requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-6(a) is not jurisdictional 

in nature and therefore may be equitably tolled.

In its decision, the court ruled that the plaintiff’s request to have his wage-loss claim reopened, and the Director’s 

denial of that request, was “irrelevant to the finality of Defendant’s denial of his claim and his ability to seek judicial 

review.” The court instead held that, according to the regulatory adjudication scheme, the FAB decision to deny the 

plaintiff’s claim became final when FAB subsequently denied his timely request for reconsideration, and since the 

plaintiff did not file his petition with the court until 61 days later, it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of his 

wage-loss claim. Furthermore, the court, citing the separation of powers, ruled that EEOICPA’s statute of limitations

was jurisdictional in nature, and therefore a court “may not apply equitable doctrines in circumvention of this express 

Congressional limitation” in 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-6(a).
44

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 

2011, funding of $0.2 million for Part B ($0.4 million in FY 2010) and $0.8 million for Part E ($0.5 million in FY 

2010) 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 $29.1 million in FY 2010 and $30.0 million in FY 2011, 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 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 285 241 256 230

Administrative Expenditures 2 $53.2 M $51.5 M $74.1 M $73.7 M

Claims Created 10,194 9,981 8,677 7,441

Recommended Decisions (Covered Applications) 12,439 13,010 11,197 11,444

Final Decisions (Covered Applications) 10,797 13,337 10,867 10,904

Number of Claims Approved (Final) 5,748 7,264 6,330 5,791

Total Lump Sum Compensation Payments 3 $448.7 M $573.5 M $381.0 M $338.6 M

Number of Medical Bill Payments 262,417 317,700 25,957 34,007

Total Medical Payments 4 $200.5 M $300.0 M $11.8 M $18.1 M
45

Appendix

Page

A. FECA Tables A1 - A4 ...................................................................................46

B. Black Lung Tables B1 - B6...........................................................................50

C. LHWCA Tables C1 - C5 ...............................................................................56

D. EEOICPA Tables D1 – D5............................................................................61

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 2002 - FY 2011

 (Cases at End-of-Year)

 Fiscal Year

 Roll Type 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Periodic Roll 56,751 58,621 57,817 60,709 50,362 51,125 50,263 49,672 49,517 49,488

 Long-Term Disability 51,092 53,099 52,367 55,257 44,910 46,258 45,604 45,162 45,263 45,382

 Death 5,659 5,522 5,450 5,452 5,452 4,867 4,659 4,510 4,254 4,106
 Table A-2

 Federal Employees' Compensation Program

Summary of Claims Activity, FY 2002 - FY 2011

 Fiscal Year

 Claim Activity 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

INCOMING CASES

Cases Created 158,118 168,174 162,965 151,690 139,874 134,360 134,013 129,690 127,526 121,290

Traumatic 132,250 142,325 138,521 129,427 119,082 114,592 115,715 112,640 111,121 105,688

 No Lost Time 80,439 84,368 80,018 74,071 67,127 64,896 66,812 64,130 61,067 56,412

 Lost Time 51,811 57,957 58,503 55,356 51,955 49,696 48,903 48,510 50,054 49,276

Occupational Disease 25,739 25,747 24,320 22,114 20,592 19,633 18,190 16,951 16,300 15,501

Fatal Cases 129 102 124 149 200 135 108 99 105 101

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 23,193 24,245 24,189 21,455 19,819 19,104 19,187 18,808 19,861 20,239

HEARINGS AND REVIEW

Total Requests for Hearing 6,820 6,751 8,132 6,757 6,241 6,556 6,584 6,438 6,501 6,739

Total Hearing Dispositions 6,272 6,743 7,682 6,961 7,424 7,581 6,789 7,085 6,758 6,991
 Table A-3

 Federal Employees' Compensation Program Obligations, FY 2002 - FY 2011

 ($ thousands)

 Fiscal Year

 Type of Obligation 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Obligations $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 $3,137,445

 Total Benefits 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 2,983,866

 Compensation Benefits 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 1,931,505

 Medical Benefits 667,797 658,121 703,571 672,006 668,205 743,124 781,594 847,373 912,796 913,141

 Survivor Benefits 130,870 130,506 130,537 140,068 129,234 135,683 139,391 137,554 137,560 139,220

 Total Administrative Expenditures 110,422 129,636 133,781 126,336 135,134 144,141 142,650 142,177 157,527 153,579

 Salaries and Expenses 81,210 86,358 86,253 86,811 88,435 90,113 89,416 90,049 98,116 98,158

 Fair Share 29,212 43,278 47,528 39,525 46,699 54,028 53,234 52,128 59,411 55,421
 Table A-4

 Federal Employees' Compensation Program Chargeback Costs, by Major Federal Agency

 CBY 2002 - CBY 2011

 ($ thousands)

 Chargeback Year 1/

 Federal Agency 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Costs $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 $2,875,430

 U.S. Postal Service 785,199 846,876 852,945 840,141 884,078 924,138 978,629 1,055,221 1,101,200 1,240,014

 Department of the Navy 248,250 245,461 245,145 237,791 244,318 244,037 242,440 240,004 234,251 236,471

 Department of Veterans Affairs 151,612 157,315 155,391 156,170 164,091 166,087 175,637 179,922 182,212 186,254

 Department of the Army 174,832 181,298 177,250 174,660 180,248 178,993 179,503 181,775 177,236 176,941

 Department of Homeland Security N/A 83,975 121,089 138,342 156,734 158,529 161,070 164,611 160,502 166,514

 Department of the Air Force 132,538 135,509 129,229 124,516 126,663 130,298 131,059 131,301 129,323 135,596

 Department of Justice 95,620 66,131 74,011 80,090 89,156 94,395 98,825 104,772 104,573 109,850

 Department of Transportation 101,716 94,682 92,659 92,687 92,830 93,609 97,931 99,251 97,687 97,457

 Department of Agriculture 69,563 72,312 69,245 68,681 70,185 70,802 72,869 73,670 72,876 72,621

 Department of Defense 63,888 65,429 63,816 62,996 65,460 62,630 60,737 63,051 63,581 65,331

 All Other Agencies 396,230 374,299 359,003 358,120 366,948 370,578 374,164 375,537 373,666 388,381

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 2011

Type of PDO's Approval

Claim Issued 1/ Rate

TRUST FUND 651

 Approved 110 16.90%

 Denied 541

RESPONSIBLE OPERATORS 5,530

 Approved 645 11.66%

 Denied 4,885

TOTAL DECISIONS 6,181

 Total Approved 755 12.21%

 Total Denied 5,426

1/ PDO is "Proposed Decision and Order".
 Table B-2

 Distribution of Part C Black Lung Claims and Disbursements, by State, FY 2011

 Total Claims MBO Total Benefits

State Received 1/ Claims 2/ In Payment 3/ ($ 000) 4/

Alabama 35,227 21 629 $5,331

Alaska 153 0 7 59

Arizona 2,179 2 91 771

Arkansas 3,860 1 113 958

California 6,505 3 146 1,237

Colorado 7,126 4 274 2,322

Connecticut 1,006 0 39 331

Delaware 789 1 41 347

District of Columbia 287 0 9 76

Florida 12,043 26 526 4,458

Georgia 1,707 2 122 1,034

Hawaii 16 0 0 0

Idaho 253 0 11 93

Illinois 32,109 14 718 6,086

Indiana 18,272 16 519 4,399

Iowa 5,158 1 130 1,102

Kansas 2,186 1 32 271

Kentucky 98,248 388 4,019 34,066

Louisiana 357 0 10 85

Maine 45 0 1 8

Maryland 6,722 11 218 1,848

Massachusetts 245 0 13 110

Michigan 10,549 8 250 2,119

Minnesota 147 0 4 36

Mississippi 371 1 16 136

Missouri 4,670 0 106 898

Montana 861 2 22 186

Nebraska 130 0 2 16

Nevada 443 1 29 246

New Hampshire 27 0 3 24

New Jersey 4,320 4 171 1,449

New Mexico 2,461 1 73 619

New York 4,047 0 124 1,051

North Carolina 3,699 13 271 2,297

North Dakota 160 0 3 24

Ohio 54,675 39 1,755 14,875

Oklahoma 3,809 4 87 737

Oregon 629 0 15 127

Pennsylvania 138,545 244 6,607 56,000

Rhode Island 40 0 2 16

South Carolina 998 3 99 839

South Dakota 54 0 4 36

Tennessee 22,026 59 783 6,637

Texas 1,770 4 75 636

Utah 4,256 6 173 1,466

Vermont 50 0 3 24

Virginia 46,529 240 2,796 23,698

Washington 1,593 2 38 322

West Virginia 117,321 375 5,529 46,865

Wisconsin 457 0 16 136

Wyoming 2,667 0 98 831

All Other 452 1 7 59

TOTAL 662,249 1,498 26,829 $227,397

1/ All filings since July 1, 1973, including terminated and nonapproved claims.

2/ Active Medical Benefits Only (MBO) claims as of 9/30/11.

3/ Active claims in payment status, excluding MBO claims, as of 9/30/11.

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 2002 - FY 2011 1/

 Number of Beneficiaries 2/

 Class of Beneficiary 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Primary Beneficiaries:

 Miners 16,395 14,773 13,398 12,012 10,857 9,744 8,654 7,699 6,967 6,633

 Widows 34,236 32,615 30,810 29,110 27,366 25,556 23,690 21,913 20,495 19,014

 Others 1,221 1,238 1,247 1,248 1,258 1,241 1,230 1,214 1,209 1,182

 TOTAL PRIMARY BENEFICIARIES 51,852 48,626 45,455 42,370 39,481 36,541 33,574 30,826 28,671 26,829

Dependents of Primary Beneficiaries:

 Dependents of Miners 12,432 11,131 10,020 9,004 8,088 7,205 6,442 5,726 5,202 5,028

 Dependents of Widows 1,077 1,052 1,006 944 874 840 777 723 681 647

 Dependents of Others 386 353 238 213 146 140 132 122 113 110

 TOTAL DEPENDENTS 13,895 12,536 11,264 10,161 9,108 8,185 7,351 6,571 5,996 5,785

TOTAL, ALL BENEFICIARIES 65,747 61,162 56,719 52,531 48,589 44,726 40,925 37,397 34,667 32,614

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 2002 - FY 2011

($ thousands)

 Fiscal Year

 Type of Obligation 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Obligations $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 $745,975

 Total Benefits 1/ 384,234 370,389 346,864 329,933 307,067 291,310 273,232 254,987 238,423 227,397

 Income Benefits 2/ 320,039 307,371 292,555 279,965 265,365 252,020 235,347 221,298 207,801 193,038

 Medical Benefits 3/ 64,196 63,018 54,309 49,968 41,702 39,290 37,885 33,689 30,622 34,359

 Administrative Costs 4/ 54,273 55,332 55,803 56,872 57,975 59,772 58,257 57,712 58,618 57,513

 Interest Charges 5/ 595,589 620,582 650,579 674,894 694,964 717,214 739,469 0 0 0

 Bond Payments 6/ 341,939 364,757 400,905

 Principal 337,472 353,424 379,286

 Interest 4,467 11,333 21,619

 One-Yr. Obligation Pmts. 7/ 60,160

 Principal 60,000

 Interest 160

Repayable Advances 8/ 465,000 525,000 497,000 446,000 445,000 426,000 426,000 6,497,989 60,000 107,749

Cumulative Debt 9/ 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 6,163,077

 Principal 6,158,245 5,864,821 5,533,284

 Capitalized Interest 212,335 424,925 629,793

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/ Repayment of prior year advances, and interest on those advances, to the Treasury as required under EESA.

8/ 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.

9/ 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 - 2011

 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

1/1/11-12/31/11 625.60 938.30 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 2011

 ($ thousands)

 Funding Disbursements

Coal Excise Treasury Income Medical Benefits Total Admin. Interest on Bond One-Year Oblig.

 Month Tax Revenue Advances Reimburse. 1/ Total Benefits 2/ Diagnostic Treatment 3/ Benefits Costs Advances Payments 4/ Payments 5/ Total

October 2010 $7,730 $0 $1,001 $8,731 $16,471 $583 $2,110 $19,164 $4,178 $0 $0 $0 $23,342

November 2010 57,885 0 692 58,577 16,528 560 1,945 19,033 1,620 0 0 0 $20,653

December 2010 53,416 0 492 53,908 16,753 686 2,597 20,036 5,378 0 0 0 $25,414

January 2011 49,788 0 588 50,376 16,453 489 1,716 18,658 5,246 0 0 0 $23,904

February 2011 64,314 0 1,111 65,425 15,754 568 2,387 18,709 4,260 0 0 0 $22,968

March 2011 51,312 0 1,055 52,367 16,121 603 2,719 19,443 6,075 0 0 0 $25,518

April 2011 58,884 0 1,737 60,621 16,430 508 1,999 18,937 4,415 0 0 0 $23,352

May 2011 38,652 0 924 39,576 15,905 502 2,539 18,946 3,376 0 0 0 $22,322

June 2011 51,309 0 1,024 52,333 15,854 535 2,456 18,845 8,475 0 0 0 $27,320

July 2011 52,926 0 862 53,788 15,483 492 2,050 18,025 5,305 0 0 0 $23,330

August 2011 50,279 0 1,194 51,473 15,848 721 2,871 19,440 5,544 0 0 0 $24,984

September 2011 86,387 107,749 544 194,680 15,438 458 2,266 18,162 3,642 0 400,905 60,160 $482,868

TOTALS $622,882 $107,749 $11,224 $741,855 $193,038 $6,705 $27,654 $227,397 $57,513 0 $400,905 $60,160 $745,975

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 (EESA).
Table C-1

 Total Industry Compensation and Benefit Payments Under LHWCA 1/

CY 2001 - CY 2010 2/

($ thousands)

 Calendar Year

 Payments By: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

 Self-Insured 

 Employers $307,708 $310,940 $309,843 $322,520 $325,694 $368,744 $325,544 $340,336 $388,088 $408,534

 Insurance Carriers 236,726 246,603 262,753 278,887 325,027 367,625 456,773 504,348 551,716 589,387

Total Payments $544,434 $557,543 $572,596 $601,407 $650,721 $736,369 $782,317 $844,684 $939,804 $997,921

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

10/01/10-9/30/11 628.42 1,256.84 314.21 2.63

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 2002 - FY 2011

 ($ 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

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

2011 125,329 112,876 1,389 2,821 8,243 4,089 9,528 8,265 504 4 755 497

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 2002 - 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 2002 - CY 2011

 ($ 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.

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

2011 123,000 666,985 CY 2010 8,000 3,540 CY 2010

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 2002 - FY 2011

 Adjudication Level Fiscal Year

 and Case Status 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

District Offices

Pending Inventory of Cases 7,391 5,495 6,051 6,375 6,338 8,563 4/ 7,726 8,075 7,700 12,974

OALJ

 Carryover from Previous FY 3,388 2,980 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 2,324 2,410

 New Cases 3,276 3,036 2,926 2,763 2,413 2,614 2,657 2,696 2,884 3,068

Total Docket 6,664 6,016 5,443 5,118 4,731 4,598 4,780 4,864 5,208 5,478

 (Dispositions) 3,529 3,499 3,088 2,800 2,747 2,475 2,612 2,540 2,798 2,976

Pending Inventory 2,980 3/ 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 2,324 2,410 2,502

BRB

 Carryover from Previous FY 248 208 267 222 211 182 152 134 114 130

 New Cases 260 332 297 288 248 241 226 229 200 201

Total Docket 508 540 564 510 459 423 378 363 314 331

 (Dispositions) 319 282 355 304 288 282 260 256 195 198

Pending Inventory 208 2/ 267 2/ 222 2/ 211 2/ 182 2/ 152 2/ 134 2/ 114 2/ 130 2/ 148 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 2011 1/

Case Status/Claims Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2011 78,378 120,663

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2011 63,412 101,791

 Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication

 Branch (FAB) 4/ 57,585 87,919

 Final Approved 34,012 52,511

 Final Denied 23,573 35,408

 Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5/ 1,464 2,956

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 355 895

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 1,109 2,061

 Completed Initial Processing -

 Referred to NIOSH 1,962 5,531

 Pending Initial Processing

 In District Office 6/ 2,401 5,385

Lump Sum Compensations 32,105 50,065

Total Payment Amounts $4,102,087,563

1/ Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception through September 30, 2011.

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 2011 1/

Case Status/Claims Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2011 69,047 99,027

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2011 56,800 66,510

 Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication

 Branch (FAB) 4/ 49,607 53,273

 Final Approved 27,646 29,776

 Final Denied 21,961 23,497

 Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5/ 1,389 1,936

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 505 815

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 884 1,121

 Completed Initial Processing -

 Referred to NIOSH 986 1,456

 Pending Initial Processing

 In District Office 6/ 4,818 9,845

Compensation Payments (Unique Cases and Claims) 7/ 21,450 22,933

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $2,443,584,117

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 11,674 12,549

Total Lump Sum Payment Amts. $1,413,450,569

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 2,395 2,869

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts. $113,877,200

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 10,350 10,353

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $916,256,348

1/ Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception through September 30, 2011.

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 2011

 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims 1/

Processing Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2011 6,303 9,981

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2011 5,845 9,312

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2011 8,371 4/ 13,337

 Final Approved 4,221 7,264

 Final Denied 4,150 6,073

Modification Orders in FY 2011 196 222

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2011 8,308 13,010

 Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 3,807 6,474

 Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 4,501 6,536

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2011 3,351 4,521

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2011 4,150 7,214

 ECMS-Generated Payments 4,117 7,140

 Non ECMS-Generated Payments 33 74

Remands 217 394

1/ Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2011 only, therefore the number of activities

 reported do not add up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY 2011. (Many

 activities recorded occurred on cases/claims received prior to FY 2011).

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 2011.
 Table D-2 Part E

 Processing Activity During FY 2011

 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims 1/

Processing Activity CASE 2/ CLAIM 3/

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2011 5,674 7,441

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2011 5,083 5,901

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2011 10,497 4/ 10,904

 Final Approved 5,605 5,791

 Final Denied 4,892 5,113

Modification Orders in FY 2011 322 368

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2011 10,958 11,444

 Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 5,555 5,811

 Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 5,403 5,633

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2011 2,030 2,271

Compensation Payments in FY 2011 (Unique Cases and Claims) 5/ 4,071 4,233

 ECMS-Generated Payments 4,065 4,227

 Non ECMS-Generated Payments 6 6

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $338,622,622

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,283 1,379

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $140,699,972

Wage-Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 536 589

Total Wage-Loss Payment Amts. $19,988,845

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 2,541 2,541

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $177,933,805

Remands 266 414

1/ Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2011 only, therefore the number of activities reported

 do not add up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY 2011. (Many activities recorded

 occurred on cases/claims received prior to FY 2011).

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 2011.

5/ Lump Sum, Wage Loss, and Impairment Allocations will not add to the Compensation Payments break out

 since a case can receive multiple payments.
 Table D-3 Part B

 EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Payments by Catergory,

Program Inception Through September 30, 2011

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/ 6,997 20.6% 11,083 $349,095 8.5%

Special Exposure Cohort Cancer (CN) 14,617 43.0% 23,983 2,166,241 52.8%

Dose Reconstructed Cancer (CN) 8,226 24.2% 11,551 1,225,671 29.9%

Beryllium Disease (CBD) 4/ 2,056 6.0% 2,702 304,537 7.4%

Beryllium Sensitivity-Only (BS) 1,722 5.1% N/A N/A N/A

Silicosis (CS) 89 0.3% 113 12,731 0.3%

Multiple Conditions 5/ 279 0.8% 303 41,550 1.0%

TOTAL 33,986 100.0% 49,735 $4,099,825 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 9/30/2011, but payments were not issued.

2/ Represents total lump sum compensation payments from EEOIC program inception through September 30, 2011.

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 17 cases ($2,262,501) 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, 2011

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 5,330

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 703

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part B

of EEOICPA 2/ 9,419

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability

That the Cancer is Related to Employment

is Less Than 50 Percent 16,672

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish

Entitlement 6,198

TOTAL 38,322

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, 2011

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 3,799

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 8,177

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability

That the Cancer is Related to Employment

is Less Than 50 Percent 7,619

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish

Entitlement 14,342

TOTAL 33,937

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.
 Table D-5 Part B

 Most Prevalent Non-Covered Medical Conditions,

 EEOIC Program Inception Through September 30, 2011

 Percentage of All Denials

Non-Covered Medical Condition For This Condition 1/

Other Lung Conditions 21 %

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 4

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) 21

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.
69

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 Ritz, 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
70

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

Jacksonville FECA District Office

Magdalena Fernandez, District Director
71

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

216-902-5601

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

Region VI/VIII -- Southwest

(Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming)
72

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 15-100F

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-241-3300

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

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
73

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
74