United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY 

TANK-AUTOMOTIVE & ARMAMENTS 

COMMAND, ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT,

Anniston, AL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0041

Issued: November 20, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

JURISDICTION

On October 14, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from an October 6, 2022 merit 

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

Employees’ Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has 

jurisdiction over the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish greater than two 

percent monaural hearing loss in the right ear, for which he previously received a schedule award.

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

FACTUAL HISTORY

On June 11, 2021 appellant, then a 59-year-old painter, filed an occupational disease claim 

(Form CA-2) alleging that he developed hearing loss due to factors of his federal employment. He 

indicated that he first became aware of his condition and realized its relationship to his federal

employment on June 29, 2020. In a June 10, 2021 statement, appellant recounted that he was 

exposed to occupational noise while working as a sandblaster and painter.

In reports dated July 23 and August 6, 2020, Dr. Richard K. Caldwell, a Board-certified

otolaryngologist, described appellant’s complaints of difficulty hearing and a sensation of water 

sloshing in his ears. He further noted that he had a history of tube placement as a child. 

Dr. Caldwell reviewed appellant’s recent audiogram and recommended continued hearing 

conservation measures.

In a follow-up report dated February 8, 2021, Dr. Caldwell noted that appellant related 

symptoms of fullness in the ears and moderate hearing loss. He diagnosed other specific disorders 

of Eustachian tube, bilateral and chronic serous otitis media, bilateral.

In periodic industrial hygiene survey reports dated May 20 and June 8, 2021, the 

employing establishment indicated that hearing protection was required and that employees were 

exposed to occupational noise in ventilation areas, painting and blasting booths, andduringforklift 

operation. 

OWCP also received a position description for a painter with the employing establishment. 

In a development letter dated July 2, 2021, OWCP advised appellant of the deficiencies of 

his claim. It informed him of the type of additional factual and medical evidence required and 

provided a questionnaire for his completion. By separate development letter of even date, OWCP 

requested that the employing establishment provide additional information regarding appellant’s 

exposure to noise due to factors of his federal employment, including comments from a 

knowledgeable supervisor regarding the accuracy of his statements. It afforded both parties 30 

days to respond.

In a July 18, 2021 response to OWCP’s development questionnaire, appellant indicated 

that from October 2004 to September 2014, he had worked for the employing establishment as a 

sandblaster with an average of four to six hours per day, six days per week, of exposure to 

occupational noise in outdated blasting booths. From September 2014 to the present, he worked 

as a painter with four to six hours per day of high noise exposure from the paint booth and the 

paint line. The employing establishment concurred with appellant’s allegations and description of 

noise exposure.

On January 5, 2022 OWCP referred appellant, a statement of accepted facts (SOAF), and 

an otologic evaluation questionnaire to Dr. Dennis G. Pappas, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, 

for a second opinion evaluation. 

Dr. Pappas, in a January 17, 2022 report, reviewed the SOAF and noted that appellant was 

exposed to occupational noise at work since 2004, including sandblasting and painting. He

performed a physical examination, which revealed some scarring on the tympanic membranes,and
3

also revealed that the eardrums were slightly retracted and did not move well with insufflation. 

Dr. Pappas further noted that appellant was unable to hear a whispered voice in either ear. He

diagnosed bilateral asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus, and bilateral chronic 

Eustachian tube dysfunction. Dr. Pappas found that the sensorineural hearing loss was unrelated 

to employment, but attributed the tinnitus to noise exposure during appellant’s federal 

employment. He requested the results of previous hearing tests to compare studies from the 

beginning of appellant’s employment. Dr. Pappas reviewed a January 17, 2022 audiogram and 

noted that it demonstrated losses of 25, 15, 20, and 30 decibels (dBs) on the left and 30, 30, 20, 

and 25 dBs on the right at the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 hertz (Hz), respectively. 

Utilizing the sixth edition of the American Medical Association, Guides to the Evaluation of 

Permanent Impairment (A.M.A., Guides),2 he calculated that appellant sustained right ear 

monaural hearing loss of 1.8 percent, a left ear monaural hearing loss of 0 percent, and binaural 

hearing loss of .3 percent. Dr. Pappas provided 2 percent impairment for tinnitus and found a total 

of 2.3 percent binaural hearing loss. He recommended further evaluation of appellant’s chronic 

Eustachian tube dysfunction and hearing amplification.

OWCP also received hearing conservation data from the employing establishment dated 

between November 5, 2003 and August 8, 2019.

On February 28, 2022 OWCP referred the medical record and SOAF to Dr. Jeffrey Israel, 

a Board-certified otolaryngologist serving as an OWCP district medical adviser (DMA), to 

determine the extent of appellant’s hearing loss and permanent impairment due to his employmentrelated noise exposure. On March 2, 2022 Dr. Israel reviewed Dr. Pappas’ examination report and 

opined that appellant’s sensorineural hearing loss was due, at least in part, to noise-induced workrelated acoustic trauma. He applied the January 17, 2022 audiometric data to OWCP’s standard 

for evaluating hearing loss under the A.M.A., Guides and determined that appellant sustained a 

right ear monaural hearing loss of 1.875 percent, a left ear monaural hearing loss of 0 percent, and 

a binaural hearing loss of .3, which he rounded down to 0 percent.3 Dr. Israel averaged appellant’s 

right ear hearing levels of 30, 30, 20, and 25 dBs at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, respectively, 

by adding the hearing loss at those four levels then dividing the sum by four, which equaled 26.25. 

After subtracting the 25 dB fence and multiplying by 1.5, he found 1.875percent monaural hearing 

loss for the right ear. Dr. Israel then averaged appellant’s left ear hearing levels of 25, 15, 20, and 

30 dBs at 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, respectively, by adding the hearing loss at those four 

levels then dividing the sum by four, which equaled 22.5. After subtracting out a 25 dB fence, he 

multiplied the remaining balance by 1.5 to calculate zero percent left ear monaural hearing loss.

Dr. Israel then calculated the binaural hearing loss by multiplying the right ear loss of 1.875 percent 

by five, adding the 0 percent left ear loss, and dividing this sum by six, which equaled .3, which 

he rounded to 0 percent.4 He recommended yearly audiograms, use of noise protection, and 

authorization for bilateral hearing aids. Dr. Israel noted that there was no applicable award for 

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

3 The policy of OWCP is to round the calculated percentage of impairment to the nearest whole number. Results 

should be rounded down for figures less than .5 and up for .5 and over. See V.M., Docket No. 18-1800 (issued 

April 23, 2019); J.H., Docket No. 08-2432 (issued June 15, 2009); Robert E. Cullison, 55 ECAB 570 (2004).

4

Id.
4

tinnitus as there was zero percent binaural hearing impairment. He opined that appellant had 

reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) on January 17, 2022, the date of the latest 

audiogram in the records and the one used by the Dr. Pappas to determine the current hearing 

impairment.

On March 31, 2022 OWCP requested clarification from Dr. Pappas including a 

rationalized medical opinion regarding causal relationship.

OWCP thereafter received a February 10, 2022 addendum report by Dr. Pappas, who

indicated that he reviewed the additional prior hearing studies and noted that appellant 

demonstrated high frequency loss on the left at 6,000 Hz and mild loss on the right a 4,000 Hz in 

2004 when he began his employment with the employing establishment. He found the January 17, 

2022 audiogram did not suggest significant noise-induced damage, and that his tinnitus could be 

attributed to work-related noise.

By decision dated May 12, 2022, OWCP accepted appellant’s claim for bilateral 

sensorineural hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus.

On July 19, 2022 appellant filed a claim for compensation (Form CA-7) for a schedule

award.

On September 2, 2022 OWCP requested clarification from the DMA including a review of

Dr. Pappas’ February 10, 2022 addendum report.

In an addendum report dated September 11, 2022, Dr. Israel indicated that his review of

Dr. Pappas’ February 10, 2022 report did not alter his opinions or permanent impairment rating 

calculations. He noted that the frequency losses addressed by Dr. Pappas were not used in 

calculating hearing impairment.

By decision dated October 6, 2022, OWCP granted appellant a schedule award for two

percent monaural hearing loss of the right ear.5 It calculated the period of the award as 1.04 weeks 

from January 17 through 24, 2022.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

The schedule award provisions of FECA6 and its implementing regulations7 set forth the 

number of weeks of compensation payable to employees sustaining permanent impairment from 

loss or loss of use, of scheduled members or functions of the body. FECA, however, does not 

specify the manner in which the percentage of loss of a member shall be determined. The method 

used in making such determination is a matter which rests in the sound discretion of OWCP. For 

consistent results and to ensure equal justice, the Board has authorized the use of a single set of 

tables so that there may be uniform standards applicable to all claimants. The A.M.A., Guides has 

5

Id.

6

5 U.S.C. § 8107.

7

20 C.F.R. § 10.404.
5

been adopted by OWCP as a standard for evaluation of schedule losses and the Board has 

concurred in such adoption.8 For schedule awards after May 1, 2009, the impairment is evaluated 

under the sixth edition of the A.M.A., Guides, published in 2009.9

OWCP evaluates industrial hearing loss in accordance with the standards contained in the 

A.M.A., Guides.10 Using the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, the losses at each 

frequency are added up and averaged. Then, the fence of 25 dBs is deducted because, as the 

A.M.A., Guides points out, losses below 25 dBs result in no impairment in the ability to hear 

everyday speech under everyday conditions.11 The remaining amount is multiplied by a factor of 

1.5 to arrive at the percentage of monaural hearing loss.12 The binaural loss is determined by 

calculating the loss in each ear using the formula for monaural loss, the lesser loss is multiplied by 

five, then added to the greater loss and the total is divided by six to arrive at the amount of the 

binaural hearing loss.13 The Board has concurred in OWCP’s adoption of this standard for 

evaluating hearing loss.14

OWCP’s procedures provide that, after obtaining all necessary medical evidence, the file 

should be routed to a DMA for an opinion concerning the nature and percentage of permanent 

impairment in accordance with the A.M.A., Guides, with the DMA providing rationale for the 

percentage of impairment specified.15

Regarding tinnitus, the A.M.A., Guides provides that tinnitus is not a disease, but rather a 

symptom that may be the result of disease or injury.16 If tinnitus interferes with activities of daily 

8

Id.; T.O., Docket No. 18-0659 (issued August 8, 2019); Jacqueline S. Harris, 54 ECAB 139 (2002).

9 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 --Claims, Schedule Awards and Permanent Disability Claims, Chapter 

2.808.5a (March 2017); Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 3 --Medical, Schedule Awards, Chapter 3.700.2 and 

Exhibit 1 (January 2010).

10 W.W., Docket No. 21-0545 (issued June 21, 2023); T.O., supra note 8; R.D., 59 ECAB 127 (2007); Bernard 

Babcock, Jr., 52 ECAB 143 (2000); see also 20 C.F.R. § 10.404.

11 A.M.A., Guides 250 (6th ed. 2009).

12 Id.

13 Id.

14 D.S., Docket No. 23-0048 (issued May 23, 2023); T.O., supra note 8; E.S., 59 ECAB 249 (2007); ReynaldoR. 

Lichtenberger, 52 ECAB 462 (2001).

15 Supra note 9 at Chapter 2.808.6f.

16 See A.M.A., Guides 249.
6

living, including sleep, reading, and other tasks requiring concentration, up to five percent may be 

added to a measurable binaural hearing impairment.17

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than two

percent monaural loss of hearing in the right ear, for which he previously received a schedule 

award.

OWCP referred appellant to Dr. Pappas for a second opinion examination relative to his 

hearing loss. In his January 17, 2022 report, Dr. Pappas reviewed audiometric testing at the 

frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz, revealing losses at 30, 30, 20, and 25 dBs for the 

right ear, respectively, and 25, 15, 20, and 30 dBs for the left ear, respectively. He diagnosed 

bilateral asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus, and bilateral chronic Eustachian 

tube dysfunction. 

On March 4, 2022 Dr. Israel, the DMA, reviewed Dr. Pappas’ report and found testing for 

the right ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz revealed dB losses at 30, 

30, 20, and 25 dBs, respectively. These dBs totaled 105 and were divided by 4 to obtain an average 

hearing loss at those cycles of 26.25 dBs. The average of 26.25 dBs was then reduced by 25 dBs 

(the first 25 dBs were discounted as discussed above) to equal 1.25, which was then multiplied by 

1.5 to equal 1.875 or two percent hearing loss for the right ear. 

Testing for the left ear at the frequency levels of 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 Hz revealed 

dB losses of 25, 15, 20, and 30, respectively. These dBs were totaled at 90 and were divided by 4 

to obtain an average hearing loss at those cycles of 22.5 dBs. The average of 22.5 dBs was then 

reduced by 25 dBs (the first 25 dBs were discounted as discussed above) to equal less than zero, 

which was then multiplied by 1.5 to equal zero percent hearing loss for the left ear.

Dr. Israel determined the binaural loss by multiplying the lesser left-sided monaural loss 

of 0 by 5, adding the right-sided hearing loss of 1.875, and dividing the total by 6, to find 0.3

percent binaural loss, which he properly rounded down to zero.18 The Board finds that the DMA 

accurately summarized the relevant medical evidence, provided detailed findings on examination, 

and reached conclusions which comported with his findings and the appropriate provisions of the 

A.M.A., Guides.

19

 The DMA’s report therefore carries the weight of the medical evidence and 

establishes that appellant has 1.875 percent hearing loss of the right ear which, in accordance with 

OWCP policy, is rounded up to two percent.

20

 Additionally, in the absence of ratable binaural 

17 Id.

18 Supra note 3.

19 See A.G., Docket No. 22-0582 (issued October 4, 2022); J.M., Docket No. 18-1387 (issued February 1, 2019).

20 Id.
7

hearing loss, the Board further finds that a schedule award for tinnitus is not allowable pursuant to 

the A.M.A., Guides.

21

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

greater than two percent hearing loss of the right ear for which he previously received a schedule 

award.

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

evidence of a new exposure or medical evidence showing progression of an employment-related 

condition resulting in permanent impairment or increased permanent impairment.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that appellant has not met his burden of proof to establish greater than two

percent monaural loss of hearing in the right ear, for which he previously received a schedule 

award. 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 6, 2022 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is affirmed.

Issued: November 20, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

21 See J.R., Docket No. 21-0909 (issued January 14, 2022); W.T., Docket No. 17-1723 (issued March 20, 2018); 

E.D., Docket No. 11-0174 (issued July 26, 2011).