OWCP

Annual Report 

to the Congress

Fiscal Year 2012

Submitted to the Congress 2014

OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
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.

Phone: (202) 693-0031

Internet address: www.dol.gov/owcp
OWCP

Annual Report

to the Congress

Fiscal Year 2012

Submitted to the Congress 2014

OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20210

File Number:

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 2012 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, 2011, through September 30, 2012.

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
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]

01

Table of Contents

Director’s Message......................................................................................................02

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.....................................................................05

Black Lung Benefits Act ..............................................................................................16

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act................................................29

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act...................41

Appendix ......................................................................................................................54

Office Directory ...........................................................................................................79

Addendum....................................................................................................................86
DIRECTOR’S 

MESSAGE

[1]
[DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE]

03

Director’s Message

The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) had a very productive year in Fiscal Year (FY) 

2012. OWCP’s 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” - was 

successfully fulfilled by all four OWCP programs. In FY 2012, we met or exceeded our targets for 22 of our 

28 Operating Plan performance measures and 23 out of 28 of our annual goals, and established goal teams 

to improve our operations and assist us in the achievement of the seven goals that represent OWCP-wide 

priorities supported by the objectives and strategies of the OWCP Strategic Plan (http://www.dol.gov/owcp/

owcpstratplan.htm). During this same period, OWCP programs received more than 175,000 claims for 

workers’ compensation benefits and over $3.2 billion in compensation and approximately $1.3 billion in 

medical benefit payments were made. In addition, all of our programs expanded their communications, 

outreach, and education activities with claimants, employers, medical providers, insurance companies, and 

other OWCP stakeholders.

In FY 2012, the Federal Employees’ Compensation (FEC) program received approximately 116,000 claims 

from injured Federal workers or their survivors and provided long-term wage replacement or dependent 

benefits for work-related injuries or diseases of over $3 billion to more than 240,000 beneficiaries. OWCP, 

through the FEC program, played an important role in the implementation of the President’s Protecting 

Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) initiative, supporting and enabling the timely 

submission of claims and assisting injured Federal employees in returning to meaningful jobs as soon as 

possible. For the 14 largest agencies, FEC helped 91.5 percent of claimants under disability management 

return to work within 2 years. Also, nearly 97 percent of traumatic injury cases were adjudicated within 

45 days of the date of receipt of the notice of injury. Through directed review by FEC staff, $14.3 million 

in compensation benefit costs were saved. Another of FEC’s major accomplishments was the successful 

deployment of the Employees’ Compensation Operations and Management Portal (ECOMP) which is 

providing employing agencies with a web-based tool to electronically file workers’ compensation forms and 

upload related claims documents directly to the FEC case management system.

Under Part C of the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) the Black Lung program received over 4,800 new claim 

filings during FY 2012, nearly 5,400 when including survivor conversions. During the year the program 

paid out $210 million in monthly compensation and medical benefits from the Black Lung Disability Trust 

Fund for nearly 22,000 Part C beneficiaries. In addition, $166 million in compensation benefits were paid 

to more than 21,000 beneficiaries under Part B of the BLBA. The Black Lung program also continued 

to monitor compensation and medical benefits that were disbursed by responsible coal mine operators 

and insurers to nearly 4,600 miners and survivors. Also in FY 2012, the program reduced the backlog of 

pending Proposed Decisions and Orders that were over 240 days old by 82 percent.

In FY 2012, the Longshore program received over 29,000 new lost-time injury claims and assisted in the 

return of 300 injured workers to gainful employment. In addition, 12,165 cases of injury and death were 

reported under the Defense Base Act (DBA). Despite the continuing high number of claims received 

during FY 2012, the Longshore program maintained its high level of performance by meeting or exceeding 

its Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) targets for the receipt of First Report of Injury and First 

Payment of Compensation within 30 days for both DBA and non-DBA cases. In addition, the final rules 

implementing the amendment to the Longshore Act’s recreational vessel exclusion were promulgated in FY 

2012.
04 

Under both Parts B and E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA), the Energy program received more than 17,000 new claims during FY 2012 from Department 

of Energy (DOE) employees or their survivors, contractors and subcontractors who have cancer and other 

illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and toxic substances. Over $1.1 billion in compensation and 

medical benefits were provided to these beneficiaries during the year. Outside of its claims adjudication 

and payment responsibilities, the Energy program focused a large amount of its time and effort on 

technological improvements that will help the program continue to provide high levels of services to its 

beneficiaries and other stakeholders. Included in these improvements in FY 2012 was the deployment of 

an integrated and expanded mission-critical case management system, the Energy Compensation System. 

Also, and in conjunction with DOE, planning and work was launched on a new method to share and verify 

employment and other secure claimant information electronically, while the expansion and enhancements 

continued on both the Site Exposure Matrices and National Library of Medicine Haz-Map Occupational 

Health databases. All three of the Energy program’s GPRA goals were once again achieved. The processing 

time goal for Part B claims of 100 days was exceeded as only 92 days on average were needed, and for Part 

E, the program exceeded the 125 day goal as initial claims were processed in an average of 104 days. Also, 

92 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 90 percent goal.

Each of the four programs under OWCP had many noteworthy accomplishments during FY 2012. These 

achievements are directly related to the efforts and determination of all of our employees, not just the 

National Office, but in each and every Region and District Office that makes up OWCP. In meeting or 

exceeding the majority of our challenging performance goals, while improving the management and 

efficiency of our programs, OWCP staff has once again demonstrated their expertise and dedication to 

delivering the best possible services to our customers and stakeholders.

Gary A. Steinberg 

 Acting Director, Office of Workers’ 

 Compensation Programs
FEDERAL 

EMPLOYEES’ 

COMPENSATION 

ACT

[2]
06 

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 96 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) 2012, the FEC program provided nearly 243,000 workers and survivors over $3.0 billion 

in benefits for work-related injuries, illnesses, or deaths. Of these benefit payments, nearly $2.0 billion were 

for wage-loss compensation, $929 million for medical and rehabilitation services, and $140 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.
07

[FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT]

Funding

Benefits are paid from the Employees’ 

Compensation Fund. Agencies are billed 

each August for benefits paid for their 

employees from the Fund, and most agencies, 

other than the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) 

and non-appropriated fund agencies, 

include those chargeback costs in their next 

annual appropriation request to Congress. 

Remittances to 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 2012, these non-chargeback expenses were approximately $73.1 

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 $54.5 million in FY 2012, 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 2012, administrative expenditures for the FEC program totaled $173.5 million. Of this amount, 

$160.2 million, approximately 5.0 percent of total program costs, were direct appropriations to the DOL’s 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), including $98.0 million in salaries and expenses and 

$62.2 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 $13.3 million are separately appropriated to the Department for legal, investigative, and other 

support from the ECAB, Office of the Solicitor, the Office of the Inspector General, and the U.S. Treasury.

Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) Initiative

Losing skilled employees to injury or illness in the Federal government has numerous costly effects, 

both direct and indirect. The loss in productivity, increased workers’ compensation costs, and loss of 

professional development for the injured employees strain Federal resources. These costs can be lowered 

by reducing the number and severity of injuries that occur and facilitating the return to work of employees 

who sustain a workplace injury or illness. Successive Executive Branch initiatives have designated DOL, 

through OWCP and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as the lead in improving 

government-wide safety and return to work. These include Federal Worker 2000; Safety, Health, and 

Return to Employment (SHARE); and most recently, Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment 

(POWER) initiatives, which was announced by President Barack Obama in July 2010.

BENEFIT OUTLAYS UNDER FECA FY 2012

Total Benefits: $3,025 Million*

Long Term Disability (Wage-Loss) 51.9% $1,570 Million

Medical Benefits 30.7% $929 Million

Temporary Disability (Wage-Loss) 12.8% $386 Million

Death Benefits 4.6% $140 Million

*Actual Obligations
08 

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.

POWER goals included three administered by OSHA:

•	 Reducing total injury and illness case rates.

•	 Reducing lost time injury and illness case rates.

•	 Analyzing lost time injury and illness data.

The Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC) is responsible for four other POWER goals. In 

FY 2012, the government-wide targets for these goals were:

•	 Increase the percent of Notices of Injury filed by Federal employers within 10 days to 82 percent.

•	 Increase the percent of Wage-Loss Claims filed by Federal employers within 5 days to 64 percent.

•	 Reduce agency Lost Production Day Rates (per 100 employees) to 35.1 days.

•	 Increase the percent of FECA Disability Management Cases returned to work within two years to 88.4 

percent.

Federal agencies have successfully responded and have worked constructively with DOL to improve 

results. The number of new Federal injury claims filed annually with DOL by Federal agencies has declined 

and fewer new injury cases, coupled with shorter average time away from work, have dropped gross lost 

production days.

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 goals to improve 

timely submission. In FY 2012, Federal agencies (less the U.S. Postal Service) filed 86.2 percent of Notices of 

Injury within 10 work days. Agencies also filed 75.9 percent of wage-loss claims within 5 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 developed a 

web-based capability (ECOMP) that extends the electronic submission capability to all employing agencies 

and further reduces 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 2012, the government-wide average LPD rate was 34.5 days which exceeded the goal of 35.1 

days, but was an increase over the FY 2011 performance of 33.2 days. To support achievement of POWER’s 

four-year LPD and return-to-work 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.
09

[FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT]

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. Performance during the first two years of the POWER initiative 

out-paced the set annual goals by several percentage points. As a result, the goals were set against FY 2011 

as a new baseline and the new four-year target is to increase the overall share of cases returned to work 

by these 14 agencies to 95 percent. In FY 2012, 91.5 percent of the injured workers had been returned to 

work within two years. This performance exceeded the goal of 88.4 percent for FY 2012, but represented a 

slight decrease from the 91.6 percent of employees returned to work in FY 2011. OWCP, along with DOL’s 

Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) conducted a study in FY 2012 to identify return-to-work 

best practices used by Federal agencies and document the obstacles that restrict agency return-to-work 

efforts. Findings were shared through the POWER RTW Council in September 2012. The larger agency 

community was invited to a public meeting of the Council, and Economic Systems, Incorporated presented 

the best and most promising practices identified through their research. OWCP/ODEP will continue to 

evaluate the results of the study in order to determine how to best implement them in return-to-work 

efforts with Federal agencies.

Achievement of these goals in FY 2012 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 met 

several times during FY 2012 to discuss best practices, share information regarding disability hiring and 

accommodations in their agencies, and hear the findings of the ODEP return-to-work study. Additionally, 

the Council participated in discussions with OWCP about increasing the timely filing and return-to-work 

targets for the final two years of the POWER initiative.

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.
10 

Case Adjudication and Management

Approximately 116,000 new injury and illness claims were filed under FECA in FY 2012. Eighty-six 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, 96.7 percent were adjudicated within 45 days of the day OWCP received 

notice of the injury. In FY 2012, 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 percent were adjudicated within 90 days. Of the more complex nontraumatic cases, 88.4 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 2012, 7,935 injured Federal employees returned to work as a result of early nurse intervention. 

Additionally, vocational rehabilitation counselors arranged training, when necessary, and successfully 

placed 118 injured workers into non-Federal employment, plus another 278 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 168 days in 

FY 2012.

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 2012, the disability in 1,195 cases had either resolved or lessened to the point that return 

to work or adjustment of benefits was possible. Adjustment or termination of benefits resulting from the 

changes in these cases produced $14.3 million in first year compensation benefit savings.

DFEC is currently exploring new methods for contracting medical advisor, nurse and vocational 

rehabilitation services to further improve delivery of services.
11

[FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT]

Services to Claimants and Beneficiaries

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

Our Customers.” Over 1.8 million calls were received by the DFEC district offices during FY 2012, many 

of which were handled by Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) in the 12 district offices. During FY 

2012, calls were connected in an average of less than three minutes which is DFEC’s service standard. The 

average wait and response times for callers were below the established targets, and 95 percent of calls were 

answered in less than two days from receipt.

DFEC began deployment of the 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. Deployment of this system was concluded in FY 2012 with DFEC’s National Office going live in 

February 2012.

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 99.1 percent of callers received courteous service in FY 2012. The use of clear and 

understandable language was reported in 98.7 percent of calls, and 97.7 percent of calls met knowledge and 

accuracy standards. The goal of 95 percent was exceeded in each of these quality categories. 

Across the 12 district offices, more than 76,000 written responses to routine inquiries were provided and 

93 percent were sent within 30 days. In addition, over 4,600 written priority inquiries were received and 

96 percent of them were answered within 14 days, well above the goal of 90 percent. Over 5,000 pieces 

of written correspondence were sampled in FY 2012. Ninety-nine 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.

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 2012, the branch received a total of 6,412 incoming requests for reviews of the written record and oral 

hearings and issued a total of 6,961 decisions.

In FY 2012, 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 

2012 was 54 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 2012 was 164 days. For appeals initiated from a 

review of the written record, the time period for issuance of a decision was 77 days in FY 2012.
12 

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; 1,125 telephone hearings 

were conducted in FY 2012. The branch also continued to conduct proceedings via videoconferencing, 

increasing productivity associated with hearings. For FY 2012, the branch conducted 728 hearings via 

teleconferencing. About 14 percent of the approximately 3,800 hearings scheduled during FY 2012 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 information technology 

claims processing support system: 

the integrated Federal Employees’ 

Compensation System (iFECS). In FY 

2012, DFEC implemented the design, 

development and implementation of a 

web portal system for processing forms 

and submitting documents (ECOMP).

Interactive Voice Response (IVR) 

Improvements and VOIP Phone 

System. In January 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 telephone, 

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 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. In FY 2012, the 

DFEC National Office began use of the VOIP phone system. Additionally, enhancements were made to 

emergency dialing capability. 

Centralization of Case-Create/Imaging (3CI). On average, approximately 10,000 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 casecreate functions, which had been previously carried out in each of the 12 DFEC district offices.
13

[FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT]

DFEC launched the central case create facility in late FY 2011 and continued to perfect and refine the 

processes during FY 2012. 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. 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 (Jacksonville and 

Kansas City), and ongoing 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. 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). In August 2011, DFEC finalized 

regulations requiring all Federal agencies to provide a method for electronically filing key claim forms by 

December 31, 2012. In recognition that not all agencies would have the resources needed to develop their 

own EDI systems, DFEC designed ECOMP, a web-based portal offered free of charge to the entire Federal 

government. ECOMP supplements the EDI-based system currently available to only a few employing 

agencies, and provides electronic submission of safety and claims-related documents. 

The first component of ECOMP, which was deployed in October 2011, is the Web Enabled Electronic 

Document Submission feature. This portion of ECOMP provides 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 also save on postage fees, and DFEC and stakeholders alike enjoy 

a more expeditious exchange of information while still maintaining the security of personal information. 

Over 30,000 documents are now submitted monthly via this feature.

In addition to the document upload features, ECOMP enables injured workers employed with enrolled 

agencies to electronically file DFEC and OSHA forms. Supervisors and agency reviewers 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 their claims 

during the submission 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). In addition to being able to 

manage and track the filing of safety and claim forms, enrolled agencies are provided with reporting 

functionality which allows them to proactively manage their timely filing rates, conduct risk management 

and injury trends analyses, and compile their OSHA 300/300A log. By the end of FY 2012, 12 departments 

or agencies were filing their claim forms through ECOMP. These agencies are experiencing the benefits of 

ECOMP, which include increased timely filing rates and a more transparent claims submission process that 

provides information on the status of claim forms to the claimant, agency, and DFEC.
14 

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued to 

achieve improvements in operating efficiencies. During 

FY 2012, DFEC avoided $72.8 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.

In FY 2012, the bill processing vendor processed 4.7 

million bills. Timely and accurate medical bill processing 

is a critical element in administration of the FECA. 

Authorizations for medical treatment were processed in 

an average of 2 workdays and 99.6 percent of bills were 

processed within 28 days. In FY 2012, the bill processing 

system was enhanced to include pricing for prescription 

drugs dispensed in a physician’s office. New claimant 

travel mileage also was implemented to reduce the mileage 

authorization from 500 miles to 200 miles. Enrollment 

of 13,281 new providers brought the total of enrolled 

providers for FECA to 214,321.

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. During FY 2012, DFEC updated procedural guidance 

based on the changes conveyed by the new regulations and communicated with stakeholders to enhance 

understanding of the new rules.

On December 31, 2011, 5 U.S.C. Section 8102a, the law authorizing death gratuities under FECA, was 

amended by Section 1121 of Public Law 112-81. Pursuant to that amendment, Federal employees may 

now designate the entire FECA death gratuity to an alternate beneficiary (previously, this designation 

was limited to 50 percent of the FECA death benefit). Effective with the enactment of this amendment, 

the employing agency is required to notify the Federal employee’s spouse, if one exists, if that employee 

designates a person other than the spouse to receive all or a portion of the FECA death gratuity. DFEC also 

updated the form CA-40 (Designation of a Recipient of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Death 

Gratuity Payment under 5 U.S.C. Section 8102a) to reflect this change.

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.

FECA BENEFITS CHARGED TO 

EMPLOYING AGENCIES

Chargeback Year 2012

Chargeback Total: $3,006 Million

Postal Service $1,320 Million

Defense $621 Million*

Veterans Affairs $201 Million

Homeland Security $178 Million

Justice $117 Million

Transportation $102 Million

Agriculture $74 Million

All Other $393 Million

*Defense Includes Navy ($240M), Army ($178M), Air Force 

($133M), and Dept. of Defense ($70M)

Note: The sum of individual agencies may not equal total due 

to rounding
15

[FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT]

•	 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.

•	 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 2012, the House of Representatives and the Senate both passed bills including many of the same 

FECA reform provisions as in the Administration’s proposal.

Program Evaluations and Studies

Throughout FY 2012, DFEC worked with DOL’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) and 

Economic Systems, Inc., on a study of the return to work of injured Federal employees with their Federal 

agencies. The report focused on four agencies for study: Department of Veterans Affairs, Transportation 

Security Administration, Department of Defense, and Architect of the Capitol. The final report, received at 

the end of Fiscal Year 2012, identified best and promising practices used by these four agencies to promote 

the return to work of their employees who sustain serious workplace injury or illness. Economic Systems 

presented their findings to the POWER Return to Work Council and the larger agency community at 

an Interagency/POWER Council meeting on September 20, 2012. OWCP will discuss and validate the 

findings of the report with the POWER Return to Work Council in early FY 2013. DFEC will work with 

ODEP and the POWER Return to Work Council to determine how to disseminate the best and promising 

practices identified in this study to the large Federal agency community. 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT

FY 2011 FY 2012

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 838 837

Administrative Expenditures1

 $153.6 M $160.2 M

Cases Created 121,290 115,697

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 20,239 19,806

Total Compensation and Benefits (Actual Obligations)2 $2,983.9 M $3,024.9 M

Number of Medical Bills Processed 5,100,000R 5,300,000

1

 OWCP expenditures; excludes DOL support costs, but includes “fair share” capital expenditures of $55.4 million in FY 2011 

and $62.2 million in FY 2012, respectively.

2

 Compensation, medical, and survivor benefits.

R Revised. 
BLACK 

LUNG 

BENEFITS 

ACT

[3]
17

[BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT]

Black Lung Benefits Act

Introduction

The Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation (DCMWC) completed its thirty-ninth year 

administering Part C of the Black Lung program in 2012. 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. 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 most recently amended by several provisions included in the Affordable Care Act 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.
18 

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 2012, monthly and 

retroactive benefit payments totaled 

$179.4 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 minerbeneficiaries. 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 2012 were $31.0 million. This 

includes payments of $5.7 million for diagnostic services, $24.4 million for medical treatment, and $0.9 

million in reimbursements to the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds for the 

cost of treating Black Lung beneficiaries. Approximately 161,000 bills were processed during the year.

Total Black Lung Part C program expenditures for all benefits in FY 2012 were $210.4 million, a decrease 

of $17.0 million from FY 2011. In FY 2012, benefits were provided from the Trust Fund to approximately 

21,500 beneficiaries each month.

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

compensation payments of approximately $32 million to about 4,590 miners and survivors. An estimated 

$5 million also was paid in medical treatment benefits, for an estimated cost to the industry of $37 million 

during FY 2012. These estimates are an increase over the previous year, as more survivors were eligible 

for benefits because of the ACA, and because of a presumed increase in medical treatment spending per 

eligible miner.

State workers’ compensation laws require coal mine operators to obtain insurance or qualify as a selfinsured 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, 2012, there were 939 Federal black lung claims being offset due to concurrent 

state benefits. An additional 66 were being offset due to other Federal benefits, and 20 due to earnings offsets.
19

[BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT]

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 163 fee petitions and paid approximately $0.5 million in 

attorneys’ fees from the Trust Fund.

In FY 2012, 1,257 claims were forwarded for formal hearings before the Office of Administrative Law 

Judges (OALJ) and 459 claims were forwarded on appeal to the Benefits Review Board (BRB). At the end of 

FY 2012, the OALJ had 2,455 claims pending while 455 were pending before the BRB.

In the Black Lung Part B program, nearly 20,000 active beneficiaries (with more than 1,700 dependents) 

were receiving nearly $14 million in monthly cash benefits as of September 30, 2012. Part B benefits in FY 

2012 totaled $166.1 million. DCMWC completed more than 3,300 maintenance actions on Part B claims 

during the year, on average less than two weeks from notification.

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

benefits far exceeded the collection of excise taxes (which were not applicable retroactively), the Fund soon 

began to require advances from the Treasury.

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

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

receipts and benefits eventually stabilized. Despite a moratorium on interest from 1986 through 1990, 

and several extensions of the excise tax rates set in 1981, by the end of FY 2008 the Trust Fund was over 

$10 billion in debt to the Treasury. The Congress addressed this debt as part of Public Law 110-343, the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act enacted in FY 2009. The debt was restructured by a one-time 

allocation from the Treasury and the issuance of zero-coupon Treasury bonds at current interest rates.

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

coal that is sold or used by producers 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 2012, the 

Trust Fund received a total of $629.1 million in tax revenues. An additional $12.5 million was collected 

from RMOs in interim benefits, fines, penalties, and interest. Total receipts of the Trust Fund in FY 2012 

were nearly $856 million, including $214 million in repayable advances from the Department of the 

Treasury.
20 

Total Trust Fund disbursements during FY 2012 were nearly $809 million. These expenditures included 

$210.4 million for income and medical benefits, $59.0 million to administer the program ($32.9 million 

in OWCP direct costs and $26.1 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), $107.9 million in one-year obligation payments to Treasury 

(for FY 2011 advances and interest on those advances), and $431.5 million in bond payments.

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

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

price. In 1986, under the Comprehensive Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, excise tax rates were increased 

again by 10 percent. The rates for underground and surface mined coal were raised to $1.10 and $0.55 per 

ton respectively, and the cap was increased to 4.4 percent of the sales price. Under current law, these tax 

rates will remain in effect until December 31, 2018, after which the rates will revert to their original levels of 

$0.50 underground, $0.25 surface, and a limit of two percent of sales price.

Central Medical Bill Processing

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

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

the Black Lung Program. During FY 2012, DCMWC avoided $553,477 in medical costs due to further 

improvements in the editing of bills.

In FY 2012, the vendor processed 160,689 Black Lung bills. A total of 99.4 percent of bills were processed 

within 28 days. The number of telephone calls handled was 47,778. Enrollment of 4,485 new providers 

brought the total of enrolled Black Lung providers to 131,952.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

As a result of the Affordable Care Act, 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 2012. The filing of new claims declined again in FY 2012, to 4,810 from 

5,428 in FY 2011 (widow’s conversions not included).

One important consequence of the Affordable Care Act 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 March 2012, OWCP proposed rules to implement the Affordable Care Act amendments. Because the 

Affordable Care Act amended the Black Lung Benefits Act itself, DCMWC had begun to process claims in 

accordance with the amended BLBA as soon as the Affordable Care Act was enacted.
21

[BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT]

Government Performance Results Act

In FY 2012, 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 2012, 

DCMWC had set its goal to:

•	 Reduce the average processing time (APT) required to process a claim from the date of receipt to the 

issuance of a Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) to no more than 240 days.

Although the processing goal for the previous year 

had been 250 days, DCMWC had been able to meet 

it with an APT of 238 days. The new goal was more 

challenging and DCMWC tried several strategies 

to meet it, albeit unsuccessfully. However, steady 

improvement was made throughout the year and 

by the fourth quarter of FY 2012, the program was 

only slightly above the goal, at 248 days. New claims 

declined from 6,059 in FY 2011 to 5,368 in FY 2012. 

These claim numbers include survivor’s conversions that 

are automatically awarded. Conversion claims numbered 

631 in FY 2011 and 558 in FY 2012. The total inventory 

of claims pending a PDO decreased from 3,605 at the 

end of FY 2011 to 2,830 at the close of FY 2012.

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 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. At the 

end of FY 2012, the medical testing timeliness goal was set at 120 days per claim.

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 2012, 84.9 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 2012. DCMWC began 

reporting on claimant representation at the district office level, and reports indicated that during FY 2011 

31.2 percent of claimants were represented by an attorney at the time the claim was adjudicated, and 

MANAGEMENT OF SSA PART B BLACK 

LUNG CLAIMS FY 2012

Professional and Timely Claims Maintenance 

Services Provided to Part B Claimants by DCMWC 

Included:

Completing Over 3,300 Maintenance Actions, 

With Average Completion Time of Less Than Two 

Weeks from Notification

Managing the Expenditure of Approximately 

$166 Million in Benefits

DCMWC was Responsible for Nearly 20,000 Active Part B Cases
22 

another 15.3 percent were represented by lay representatives, for a total of 46.5 percent of claimants with 

representation. In FY 2012, the proportion of represented claimants increased to 48.9 percent, as 28.9 

percent of claimants had attorneys and 20.0 percent had lay representatives.

Operation and Maintenance of Automated Support Package

DCMWC’s Automated Support Package (ASP) is provided through a contract. The ASP includes a clientserver computer system for all black lung claims, statistical and data processing, telecommunications 

support, and administrative functions.

During FY 2012, DCMWC implemented several changes to the ASP that 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.

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 2012, 77 active companies 

were authorized by the Secretary of Labor to self-insure. These self-insurance authorizations cover 

approximately 860 subsidiaries and affiliated companies. 

DCMWC continued it Memorandum of Understanding with the National Council on Compensation 

Insurance (NCCI) that enables the program to receive insurance policy data on individual operators from 

NCCI for states that mandate such reporting. The reporting system was tested and activated early in FY 

2012, and promises to make policy coverage more reliable and accurate than the former paper-based 

reporting system, which has been almost entirely eliminated. This electronic reporting system allowed 

DCMWC to collect information on 1,788 policies, with many of these policies having multiple operators.

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 2012, 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 continued 

to update the list of approved diagnostic physicians by requesting accurate certification and specialty 

information in order to ensure that highly-qualified doctors were available to perform medical evaluations.

DCMWC continued to work closely with the National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) regarding digital x-rays, and during FY 2012 regulations addressing the classification of digital 

images for the coal miner surveillance program were published by NIOSH. At the close of FY 2012, DOL 

was preparing its own regulations that would permit digital radiology to be used by approved diagnostic 

providers in the Federal Black Lung program. In the interim, x-ray interpretations must continue to be 
23

[BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT]

classified in accordance with the current guidelines set forth by NIOSH and the International Labour 

Office (ILO). All x-rays performed for diagnostic testing in Federal black lung claims must conform to 

the specifications and physicians using the ILO Classification system must continue to use traditional film 

screen radiographs and standards.

In FY 2012, 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. In preparation for FY 2013, DCMWC 

introduced a measurement called Annual Benefit Evaluation (ABE), in which the program would evaluate 

its performance in ensuring that benefits are properly paid. The ABE measures the various components of 

benefit reporting, including annual questionnaires, payment reporting by responsible coal miner operators, 

and reports by representative payees. This process also serves to minimize erroneous payments. 

Regulatory Initiatives

In FY 2012, OWCP proposed rules to implement Black Lung Benefits Act amendments included in 

the Affordable Care Act. These amendments restored two provisions that were eliminated in 1981: 30 

U.S.C. 921(c)(4), which provides a presumption of total disability or death due to pneumoconiosis where 

the miner had at least 15 years of underground (or comparable surface) coal mine employment and a 

totally disabling respiratory impairment, and 30 U.S.C. 932(l), which provides automatic entitlement for 

eligible survivors of miners who were awarded benefits on their lifetime claims. The proposed rules set 

out standards for determining when the amendments apply; clarify how the 15-year presumption may 

be invoked and rebutted; clarify automatic survivors’ entitlement, including how the amendments affect 

a survivor whose earlier claim was denied under the law in effect prior to the ACA amendments; and 

eliminate several obsolete or unnecessary rules in accordance with Executive Order 13536. See 77 Federal 

Register 19456-78 (March 30, 2012).

Litigation

Courts of Appeals

During FY 2012, the courts of appeals published seven decisions in cases arising under the BLBA. 

Important holdings from these cases are summarized below.

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

The Affordable Care Act 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. Prior to the 1981 BLBA amendments, 

section 422(l) provided automatic derivative entitlement for eligible survivors of a miner whose lifetime 

disability claim was approved. The 1981 amendments restricted this provision to claims filed before 

January 1, 1982 (the effective date of the amendments), and required an ineligible survivor to prove the 

miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis. Section 1556 of the Affordable Care Act reinstated automatic 

entitlement for survivors who met the filing requirements. 

In FY 2012, two courts of appeals addressed the interpretation and constitutionality of section 422(l) as 

amended. In B & G Construction Co., Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 662 F.3d 233 (3rd Cir. 2011) (Hardiman, J., 

concurring), the Third Circuit first addressed the apparent conflict between amended section 422(l)’s grant 

of automatic entitlement to certain survivors of awarded miners and other, unchanged BLBA provisions 
24 

that require a survivor to prove the miner died due to pneumoconiosis to prevail on a claim filed after 1981. 

The court held that amended section 422(l), as the most recent pronouncement of Congress, controls and 

impliedly repeals any contrary language in the other provisions. The court then rejected the employer’s 

argument that retroactive application of amended section 422(l) violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due 

Process and Takings clauses. The court rejected the argument that section 422(l) violates procedural due 

process by creating an irrebuttable presumption of death due to pneumoconiosis. It held that amended 

Section 422(l) is not concerned with the cause of the miner’s death; instead it is intended to compensate 

survivors for the suffering inflicted on miners, and to provide miners with peace of mind that dependents 

will be cared for. Moreover, because this purpose is reasonable, the court held the provision does not 

violate substantive due process. Finally, the court held section 422(l) does not violate the Takings clause. 

It found the employer did not suffer a disproportionate impact from its increased liability; the employer 

was only liable for the automatic survivors’ benefits if it had employed the miner and he also was entitled 

to benefits. Similarly, the court concluded the increased liability was foreseeable given the mandatory 

insurance-policy endorsement making carriers and self-insured operators liable for any obligations arising 

from BLBA amendments. 

In West Virginia CWP Fund v. Stacy, 671 F.3d 378 (4th Cir. 2011), the Fourth Circuit similarly rejected an 

employer’s arguments challenging the constitutional validity of amended section 422(l). It held section 

422(l) does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause because Congress had a legitimate 

purpose in compensating survivors for deceased miners’ disabilities arising out of coal mine employment. 

Aside from that purpose, the court noted that Congress mitigated the amendment’s retroactive effect on 

employers by limiting the pool of qualified claimants to those survivors who filed after January 1, 2005. The 

court also held the provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings clause because an automatic 

survivor’s award is merely an obligation imposed on the employer to pay money and not a deprivation of 

a specific property interest. The court did not consider such obligations unforeseeable given the BLBA 

insurance regulations requiring all insurers and self-insurers to assume any benefits liabilities imposed 

by future statutory amendments. The court also addressed the proper interpretation of amended section 

422(l). Agreeing with the Director, the court concluded the “claims” subject to section 422(l) includes 

claims filed by survivors after January 1, 2005, and not, as the employer argued, only claims filed by miners 

after that date. Finally, although the issue was not properly raised by the employer, the court agreed with 

the Third Circuit’s holding in B & G Construction that the amendments to section 422(l) impliedly repealed 

any inconsistent language in other BLBA provisions. 

Regulatory Preamble as Guide to Physicians’ Credibility. The preamble to the regulations implementing 

the BLBA sets forth the medical and scientific premises upon which DOL relied in promulgating the 

regulations. During FY 2012, two courts of appeal approved the use of the preamble as an optional guide 

to assessing physicians’ credibility. In Harman Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP, 678 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2012), 

the Fourth Circuit rejected the employer’s argument that the ALJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) by consulting the preamble when he weighed conflicting medical reports on a medical issue. The 

ALJ discounted a physician’s opinion that pneumoconiosis does not manifest as an obstructive lung disease 

because the DOL had rejected the same view in the preamble given substantial medical literature to the 

contrary. The Fourth Circuit rejected the employer’s argument that such reliance is impermissible because 

the preamble, unlike the regulations, was not subjected to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures 

during the rulemaking. It concluded the preamble was an appropriate source for the DOL’s views and a 

legitimate tool for assessing a physician’s credibility. Consequently, the court held the ALJ acted within 

her discretion in consulting it. The court also rejected the employer’s argument that the preamble must be 

made part of the administrative record if the ALJ intends to consider it. It held that neither the APA itself 

nor any other authority required the document’s inclusion. Finally, the court noted its decision accorded 
25

[BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT]

with those of the Third and Seventh Circuits. See Helen Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP, 650 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 

2011); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 521 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2008). 

In A & E Col Co. v. Adams, 694 F.3d 798 (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit agreed with the Fourth, Third, 

and Seventh Circuits that an ALJ can consult the preamble in weighing conflicting medical evidence. The 

ALJ concluded one physician was less credible, in part, because he relied on medical literature the preamble 

had rejected concerning the effects of coal mine dust exposure on an individual’s lungs. The BRB upheld 

the ALJ’s reliance on the preamble as “an authoritative statement of medical principles” accepted by the 

DOL. The Sixth Circuit agreed. It stated the preamble itself does not purport to be a binding document. 

Furthermore, the court determined the ALJ did not treat the preamble as binding; rather, he permissibly 

considered only whether the physicians’ reasoning was consistent with the preamble’s views. The court also 

rejected the employer’s argument that the preamble must be placed in the administrative record before an 

ALJ may rely on it, citing the Fourth Circuit’s Harman Mining decision. 

Subsequent Claims – 20 C.F.R. § 725.309(d). A black lung program regulation, 20 C.F.R. 725.309, allows 

a claimant to file a “subsequent” claim if his first claim has been denied. To avoid the preclusive effect of 

res judicata, which prohibits re-adjudication of a prior denied claim, section 725.309 requires the claimant 

to prove that his condition has changed by establishing with new evidence an element of entitlement 

that was decided against him in the prior claim. In Cumberland River Coal Co. v. Banks, 690 F.3d 477 

(6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit adopted the Director’s interpretation of section 725.309 and held that a 

claimant may establish the necessary change if the new evidence establishes a previously-unproved element 

of entitlement. The court rejected the employer’s argument that the claimant must also prove that the 

newly submitted evidence differs qualitatively from the old evidence. Although Sixth Circuit precedent 

interpreting a prior version of section 725.309 required such a comparison, the court held that the revised 

rule clearly requires only that the new evidence disprove the continuing validity of the prior denial. 

Complicated Pneumoconiosis – 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 718.304. The BLBA provides an 

irrebuttable presumption that a miner is totally disabled by, or died due to, pneumoconiosis that may 

be invoked with (i) chest X-ray evidence of “large opacities” measuring more than one centimeter in 

diameter; (ii) autopsy/biopsy evidence of “massive lesions;” or (iii) an equivalent diagnosis by other 

means. Neither the statute nor the regulations define “massive lesions.” In Bridger Coal Co. v. Director, 

OWCP, 669 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2012), the Tenth Circuit considered the quantum of proof necessary for 

a claimant to establish the existence of massive lesions through autopsy evidence. At the urging of the 

Director, the court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit’s holding in Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. 

Director, OWCP, 508 F.3d 975 (11th Cir. 2007), that a medically reasonable diagnosis of massive lesions/

complicated pneumoconiosis is sufficient to invoke the presumption. The court rejected the employer’s 

invitation to adopt the Fourth Circuit’s requirement that the claimant must prove that lesions detected by 

autopsy or biopsy would appear as opacities greater than one centimeter on an X-ray. Double B Mining, 

Inc. v. Blankenship, 177 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1999). The court concurred with the Eleventh Circuit’s rationale 

for rejecting this “equivalency” test: (i) it conflates the X-ray and autopsy/biopsy means for establishing 

the disease, which Congress intentionally separated by placing the two methods in disjunctive clauses; 

(ii) by conflating the two distinct methods, the biopsy/autopsy clause is effectively superfluous given 

the “other evidence” method; (iii) Supreme Court precedent and the BLBA’s legislative history note the 

diagnostic superiority of autopsies compared to X-rays; and (iv) an equivalency test conflicts with the 

statutory prohibition on denying claims solely based on a negative X-ray. Finally, the court concluded 

the equivalency test is inconsistent with the plain language of section 411(c)(3), which describes the three 

invocation methods in the disjunctive, and with the BLBA’s requirement that an ALJ must consider “all 

relevant evidence.” 
26 

Modification – 33 U.S.C. § 922 as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a); 20 C.F.R. § 725.310. A party may 

petition for modification within one year after a denial of benefits or the last payment of benefits based on 

a mistake in fact or a change in condition. In Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Sharpe, 692 F.3d 317 (4th Cir. 2012) 

(Agee, J., dissenting), the employer sought to modify a miner’s award after the miner’s death in order to 

avoid the award’s collateral estoppel effects in the survivor’s claim. In a prior proceeding, the Fourth Circuit 

remanded the claim for the ALJ to consider whether granting modification would render justice; it directed 

the ALJ to consider the employer’s diligence and motivation in requesting modification; the possible 

futility of granting modification if the employer could not recover the miner’s benefits; and the comparative 

benefits of accuracy versus finality. Sharpe v. Director, OWCP, 495 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2007). On remand, the 

Benefits Review Board, reversing the ALJ, held that granting modification would not render justice because 

the employer could not recover the miner’s benefits and because employer’s motive – avoiding collateral 

estoppel – was improper. The Fourth Circuit, with one judge dissenting, affirmed the Board’s decision. 

Emphasizing the employer’s improper motive rather than its conduct, a majority gave paramount weight 

to the fact that modification would allow the employer to circumvent collateral estoppel and “foil” the 

survivor’s “good faith” claim. 

Benefits Review Board

During FY 2012, the Benefits Review Board (BRB) issued 623 decisions in cases arising under the BLBA, of 

which ten were published. Important holdings from several of these cases are summarized below.

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

The Affordable Care Act 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 Wright v. 

Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp., 25 BLR 1-69 (2012), the Board addressed the nature of amended Section 422(l). 

Adopting the Third Circuit’s holding in B & G Construction Co., Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 662 F.3d 233 (3rd 

Cir. 2011), the Board held that the provision is not intended to compensate survivors for employmentrelated death, and thus does not create an impermissible irrebuttable presumption of death due to 

pneumoconiosis. Instead, amended section 422(l) constitutes a rational choice by Congress to compensate 

survivors for the suffering inflicted on miners, and to provide miners with peace of mind that dependents 

will be cared for.

In Dotson v. McCoy Elkhorn Coal Corp., 25 BLR 1-13 (2011) (en banc), the Board addressed the date 

from which benefits should be paid when a survivor is entitled to benefits under amended section 422(l). 

Agreeing with the Director, the Board held that an existing program regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 725.503(c), 

governs the onset date and provides that survivor benefits commence the month and year the miner died. 

The Board reasoned that nothing in the Affordable Care Act suggests that Congress intended a different 

benefits commencement date for claims awarded under amended section 422(l). 

In three cases, the Board considered the interplay of amended section 422(l) with statutory and regulatory 

provisions that allow a claimant’s entitlement to benefits to be considered even after the final denial of a 

claim. Under the BLBA’s modification provision, a claimant may, within one year, request reconsideration 

of a final decision denying benefits. This provision constitutes a statutory waiver of the doctrine of res 

judicata, which generally prohibits re-adjudication of denied claims. If modification is not requested, the 

program regulations permit the claimant to pursue a “subsequent” claim but only if certain conditions are 

met. These conditions implement res judicata by ensuring that the subsequent claim is not simply a readjudication of the denied claim. 
27

[BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT]

In Mullins v. ANR Coal Co., LLC, 25 Black Lung Rep. 1-49 (2012), the Board held that amended section 

422(l) applies in the case of a survivor who timely requested modification of her denied BLBA claim after 

the Affordable Care Act was enacted. Agreeing with the Director, the Board held that the survivor was 

entitled to benefits under amended section 422(l) because her claim met the Affordable Care Act’s filing 

date and pendency requirements: the claim was filed after January 1, 2005 and, because of the timely 

modification request, was pending after the Affordable Care Act’s enactment. 

In Richards v. Union Carbide Corp., 25 Black Lung Rep. 1-31 (2012)(en banc), the Board agreed with the 

Director and held that amended section 422(l) applies to a subsequent claim filed by a survivor whose prior 

claim was denied for failure to prove death due to pneumoconiosis. The Board reasoned that because, in 

certain limited circumstances, the BLBA now provides for survivor’s entitlement without consideration 

of the miner’s cause of death, applying amended section 422(l) to a survivor’s subsequent claim does not 

constitute re-adjudication of the prior denied claim and does not violate res judicata. The Board also held 

the claimant’s entitlement is subject to the regulatory prohibition on the payment of benefits for any period 

prior to the date on which the order denying the prior claim became final. Accordingly, the Board held that 

in the case of a claimant who is entitled to survivor’s benefits based on a subsequent claim, benefits cannot 

commence any earlier than the month after the month in which the denial of the prior claim became final.

Finally, in Surratt v. U.S. Steel Mining Co., 25 BLR 1-75 (2012), the survivor filed a request for modification 

of her denied subsequent claim after Affordable Care Act was enacted. Applying its holdings in Richards 

and Mullins, the Board held the survivor’s subsequent claim was awardable under amended section 422(l) 

because it met the Affordable Care Act’s filing date and pendency requirements.

2010 Amendments to the BLBA; Statutory Presumption of Total Disability or Death Due to 

Pneumoconiosis – 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4). The Affordable Care Act 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 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 Owens v. Mingo Logan Coal Co., 25 Black Lung Rep. 1-1 (2011), the Board rejected the employer’s 

argument that retroactive application of amended Section 411(c)(4) violates both the due process and 

takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. The Board relied on its holding in Mathews v. United Pocahontas 

Coal Co., 24 BLR 1-193 (2010), in which it rejected similar arguments in the context of amended section 

422(l). In addition, the Board rejected the employer’s contention that the section 411(c)(4) presumption 

applies only to cases in which the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund is liable for benefits. Agreeing with 

the Director, the Board held that the presumption applies to all claims, notwithstanding statutory language 

outlining how “the Secretary may rebut” the presumption. The Board noted that the courts of appeals have 

consistently applied section 411(c)(4) to employer claims. 

In order to invoke the section 411(c)(4) presumption, a miner must prove he was employed at least 

fifteen years in an underground coal mine or at a surface coal mine “in conditions substantially similar to 

conditions in an underground mine.” In Muncy v. Elkay Mining Co., 25 Black Lung Rep. 1-21 (2011), the 

Board held that surface work at an underground coal mine counts as underground coal mine employment 

for purposes of Section 411(c)(4). The Board relied on its decision in Alexander v. Freeman United Coal 
28 

Mining Co., 2 Black Lung Rep. 1-497 (1979), in which it held that section 411(c)(4)’s coal mine employment 

requirement focuses on the type of coal mine where the employee worked rather than the location at which 

he worked. Thus, a miner employed at an underground coal mine is not required to prove his work on the 

surface was comparable to conditions underground.

In another decision, the Board addressed the appropriate methods of rebuttal to be used when the section 

411(c)(4) presumption is invoked in a survivor’s claim. Agreeing with the Director, it held that the 

presumption may be rebutted either by disproving the existence of pneumoconiosis or by disproving a link 

between coal mine employment and the miner’s death. Recognizing that a survivor who is not eligible 

under section 422(l) may establish entitlement only by proving death due to pneumoconiosis, the Board 

reasoned that section 411(c)(4) correspondingly allows survivors only a presumption that the miner’s death 

was due to pneumoconiosis. This presumption can be rebutted in only two ways – by showing that either 

the miner did not have pneumoconiosis, or that his death was unrelated to his coal mine employment. 

Copley v. Buffalo Mining Co., 25 Black Lung Rep. 1-81 (2012).

BLACK LUNG BENEFITS ACT

Part C1 Part B2

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 161 157 17 17

OWCP Administrative Expenditures3 $31.3 M $32.9 M $5.1 M $5.6 M

Total Compensation and Benefit Payments4

 $227.4 M $210.4 M $189.5 M $166.1 M

Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 22,332 20,640 22,424 19,679

 Medical Benefits Only 1,084 901 N/A N/A

Responsible Coal Mine Operator Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 4,228 4,231 N/A N/A

 Medical Benefits Only 414 359 N/A N/A

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 $26.2 million in FY 2011 and 

$26.1 million in FY 2012, 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 $32.6 million in FY 2011 and $37.0 million in FY 2012, respectively.
LONGSHORE 

AND HARBOR 

WORKERS’ 

COMPENSATION 

ACT

[4]
30 

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 
31

[LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT]

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 $1,135.9 million in Calendar Year (CY) 2011, a 13.8 percent increase compared to CY 

2010, which was largely attributable to continuing increases in payouts under the Defense Base Act.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, total DOL expenditures for program operations and the administration of 

LHWCA and its extensions were $25.8 million, of which $11.4 million were the direct costs of OWCP. The 

remaining $14.4 million 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 96 

people in the national office and 11 district offices.

During FY 2012, approximately 600 self-insured employers and insurance carriers reported 29,287 losttime injuries under the LHWCA. At year’s end, 15,226 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 2012. 

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 12,165 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 $122.7 million in benefits in FY 2012, of which $111.1 million was for 

second injury (section 8(f)) claims. FY 2012 expenditures from the DCCA Special Fund totaled $8.7 

million, of which $8.0 million was for second injury cases.
32 

Government Performance 

Results Act

In FY 2012, 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 

non-DBA cases filed within 30 

days. The First Report of Injury 

measure tracks the time from 

the date of injury or death, or the 

date of the employer’s knowledge 

of the injury and the onset of the 

disability, 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 85 percent of the 

cases were filed within 30 days 

against the target of 80 percent. 

The non-DBA Employers First 

Report of Injury target also was 

exceeded. DLHWC’s year-end 

performance was 86 percent filed 

within 30 days against the target 

of 85 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 2012 the GPRA result 

for DBA cases was 63 percent of the initial payments for compensation were issued within 30 days, versus 

the 60 percent target. The non-DBA First Payment of Compensation target for cases filed within 30 days 

remained steady; DLHWC’s year-end performance was 85 percent against an annual target of 85 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 12,165 in 

FY 2012, this is still well above the pre-Afghanistan and Iraq war total of 347 in FY 2002.
33

[LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT]

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 2012, DLHWC district 

offices conducted 3,253 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. Informal 

dispute resolution is regularly promoted by DLHWC management at the many industry educational events 

throughout the year. These efforts resulted in the program exceeding their performance targets in this area.

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 2012.

Claims Management and Compliance Assistance Activities

The number of DBA injury and death reports of civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, after a decline 

from FY 2010 to FY 2011, again increased in FY 2012 to a total of 9,224, of which 261 involved the death of 

a worker. Between September 1, 2001 and September 30, 2012, a total of 90,680 DBA cases were reported, 

including 3,187 deaths, of which 68,007 cases (2,850 deaths) originated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

DLHWC continued to handle this high number of DBA claims with initial screening and claim creation in 

the New York City District Office, then distribution of 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 2012, DLHWC also continued the extraction of various monthly reports from the Longshore 

data systems to provide assistance in the reviewing of performance results with industry executives on a 

quarterly basis. The Longshore program also continued the sharing of DBA carrier results with their larger 

customers. This results in greater compliance with established performance standards.
34 

DBA Program Activities

The number and severity of Defense Base Act claims remain at high levels. Reports of injury and death 

under DBA increased in FY 2012 after a decline from FY 2010 to FY 2011. During FY 2012, an Interagency 

Working group composed of DOL, the Department of State, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency 

for International Development continued to meet and discuss ways to address Congress’ concerns about 

costs and claims processing under the Defense Base Act and the War Hazards Compensation Act.

Also, on June 5, 2012, Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5891, titled the Defense 

Base Act Insurance Improvement Act, which would require the Departments of Defense and Labor to 

develop a strategy to implement a government-wide self-insurance program for DBA claims within six 

months of enactment, and to implement the strategy within 12 months of enactment. OWCP provided 

technical assistance to House Committee members and their staff at their request.

Rehabilitation Activities

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

during FY 2012. The job market continued in its depressed state throughout the country, making job 

placement for rehabilitation program participants very challenging. Despite these challenges, DLHWC 

was largely successful during the year, achieving 99 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 Initiatives

In FY 2012, OWCP promulgated final rules implementing an amendment to the Longshore Act’s 

“recreational vessel” exclusion in Section 2(3)(F), 33 U.S.C. 902(3)(F). Between 1984 and 2009, workers 

who repaired or dismantled recreational vessels under 65 feet in length were excluded from coverage if 

they were covered by a state workers’ compensation program. The American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 expanded this exclusion by eliminating the 65-foot limitation; post-amendment, workers 

who repair recreational vessels of any length or dismantle them for repair are excluded from LHWCA 

coverage if they are covered under a state workers’ compensation law. The final rules implementing this 

amendment generally use the U.S. Coast Guard’s standards to define a “recreational vessel.” OWCP added 

two provisions to make it easier to apply these standards in the LHWCA context. First, a manufacturer or 

builder may determine whether a vessel is recreational within the meaning of the regulation based on the 

vessel’s design rather than on its end use. Second, noncommercial vessels that are recreational by design 

and owned or chartered by the Federal or a state government fall within the recreational vessel definition. 

The final rule also sets out the amendment’s effective date and standards for determining when it applies. 

See 76 Federal Register 82117-29 (Dec. 30, 2011).

Litigation

United States Supreme Court

During FY 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions in cases arising under the LHWCA 

and its extensions. These cases are summarized below.

Scope of coverage under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act – 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b). The Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) extends the LHWCA to an employee’s injury or death “occurring 

as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf ” to extract the natural resources from 
35

[LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT]

the shelf ’s bed and subsoil. In Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, __U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 680 (2012) 

(Scalia, Alito, JJ., concurring), the Supreme Court addressed a split in the circuits concerning the legal 

test for determining the scope of OCSLA coverage for injuries occurring outside the geographic confines 

of the outer continental shelf itself. The Third Circuit extended OCSLA coverage to any work-related 

injury or death that would not have occurred “but for” the employer’s operations on the shelf. The Fifth 

Circuit limited coverage to injuries or deaths that actually occur on a platform in, or in the waters above, 

the shelf. The Ninth Circuit, where the case arose, adopted a third test: coverage extends to any worker 

who establishes a “substantial nexus” between the injury/death and the employer’s operations on the shelf. 

To satisfy this standard, the employee’s work must “directly further” and be in the regular course of those 

operations. In this case, the employee worked almost exclusively on offshore drilling platforms; he spent 

the negligible remainder of his employment at the employer’s onshore processing facility. He died as the 

result of an accident that occurred while working at the onshore facility consolidating and transporting 

scrap metal that came from the offshore platforms. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for application 

of the “substantial nexus” test to determine whether the deceased employee’s survivor was entitled to death 

benefits under OCSLA. The employer appealed and urged the Supreme Court to adopt the Fifth Circuit’s 

rule. On the Director’s behalf, the Solicitor General offered a fourth alternative to the circuit courts’ tests: 

the OCSLA covers off-shelf injuries if the employee’s on-shelf work is substantial in duration and nature 

and the duties the employee was performing when injured contribute to shelf operations. In the alternative, 

the Director argued that the Court should adopt the Ninth Circuit test as opposed to the Third and Fifth 

Circuit tests. The Court concluded the Ninth Circuit’s “substantial nexus” test best implements section 

1333(b). The Court reasoned that this test most faithfully reflects the statutory language and Congress’ 

intent that OCLSA cover any injury regardless of where it occurred provided it occurred “as the result 

of operations conducted on the” shelf itself. Accordingly, the Court held the employee must establish a 

“significant causal link” between his injury and the employer’s on-shelf extraction operations. The Court 

remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for consideration of the survivor’s claim under the correct legal 

standard. The concurring justices agreed with the judgment but disagreed with the majority’s standard. 

They would hold that the OCSLA supplies the workers’ compensation remedy if his injury was “proximately 

caused” by the employer’s on-shelf operations.

When is a person “newly awarded compensation” for purposes of determining the applicable 

maximum weekly compensation rate – 33 U.S.C. § 906(c). Under the LHWCA, upon learning of an 

injury, employers are required to promptly pay compensation or dispute the obligation to pay. In the 

vast majority of cases, employers pay voluntarily without contesting liability. If a dispute arises, the 

statute provides an adjudication process that culminates in a compensation order. Several statutory 

provisions refer to benefit payments as being made either without an award or pursuant to an award by a 

compensation order. Disability and death benefits are capped at a maximum of no more than twice the 

national average weekly wage which is determined each fiscal year by the Secretary of Labor. Under section 

906(c), the applicable cap is that of the fiscal year in which the employee is “newly awarded compensation.” 

In Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., __ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1350 (2012) (Ginsburg, J., concurring in part 

and dissenting in part), the Court addressed a split in the circuits concerning when an employee is 

considered “newly awarded compensation” for purposes of section 906(c). The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits 

held that the fiscal year in which a compensation order issues determines the applicable maximum. The 

Ninth Circuit, where Roberts arose, utilized the fiscal year in which the employee’s disability began and 

he became entitled to compensation. In this case, the employee sustained a work-related injury in fiscal 

year 2002; an ALJ awarded his claim in fiscal year 2007. The ALJ, BRB, and Ninth Circuit relied on fiscal 

year 2002 to determine the maximum allowable compensation under section 906(c). Before the Court, 

the claimant contended that “awarded” has only one meaning throughout the statute and thus the Fifth 

and Eleventh Circuits correctly interpreted section 906(c) as meaning that a person is “newly awarded 
36 

compensation” when an ALJ issues a compensation order. The Director and the employer supported the 

Ninth Circuit’s view. The majority concluded the Ninth Circuit was correct and held that the phrase is only 

sensible if construed to mean “statutorily entitled to compensation because of disability.” After finding 

that “newly awarded compensation,” in isolation, was ambiguous, the majority identified four reasons for 

reading it as meaning the date disability entitlement begins: it is logical because employers must know 

how much compensation is due in order to meet their obligation to voluntarily pay benefits promptly; it 

is consistent with the statutory purpose to compensate the injured employee for any decrease in the wages 

he was earning when injured; it avoids disparate treatment for similarly-situated employees who would 

otherwise receive different compensation rates if their compensation orders issued in different fiscal years; 

and it discourages “gamesmanship” if employees could otherwise manipulate the administrative process by 

delaying the entry of a compensation order so as to obtain greater compensation through the application of 

a more generous 906(c) cap. Accordingly, the majority held an employee is “newly awarded compensation” 

as of the date he becomes disabled and statutorily entitled to benefits regardless of the date a subsequent 

compensation order, if any, is issued awarding benefits. The dissent agreed with the majority that the 

employee’s argument was untenable, but would hold the applicable maximum to be that for the fiscal year 

when an employer voluntarily begins to pay compensation or when the employer is ordered to pay.

Courts of Appeals

During FY 2012, the courts of appeals published seven decisions in cases arising under the LHWCA and its 

extensions. Important holdings from some of these cases are summarized below.

Exclusivity of Remedies under the Defense Base Act – 42 U.S.C. § 1651(c), 33 U.S.C. § 905(a); Scope of 

“Injury” under the LHWCA, 33 U.S.C. § 902(2). The increase in defense-related contracting overseas to 

support the military in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in an upsurge of claims under the Defense Base 

Act (DBA), an extension of the LHWCA. It has also led to increased civil litigation by civilian overseas 

contractors and their survivors. Recovery under the DBA is generally an employee’s exclusive remedy 

against his or her employer for covered injuries (including death). 42 U.S.C. § 1651(c); 33 U.S.C. § 905(a). 

Thus, employees cannot sue their employers (but are free to sue third parties) for covered injuries; instead, 

the employer is obligated to pay LHWCA benefits. Covered injuries include injuries “caused by the willful 

act of a third person directed against an employee because of his employment.” 33 U.S.C. § 902(2). 

In Fisher v. Halliburton, 667 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2012), the court accepted an interlocutory appeal to 

determine whether a civil suit by employees’ survivors against the deceased workers’ employer should be 

dismissed because the LHWCA and DBA provide the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy for the deaths of covered 

employees. The decedents worked for KBR (a government contractor) as truck drivers in Iraq; they were 

killed by insurgents while driving a convoy of supplies for the military. The plaintiffs sued KBR in federal 

district court, alleging several state-law causes of action. KBR moved the district court to dismiss the suit 

as barred by exclusivity. In determining that the DBA was not the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy, the district 

court inferred the decedents were killed because of their nationality and not their employment. Thus, the 

district court found that the deaths did not fall within the definition of an “injury” under the LHWCA 

because they were not injuries caused by the willful act of a third person directed against an employee 

because of his employment. Accordingly, the district court denied the motion and certified its order for 

immediate appeal to the court. The government submitted an amicus brief expressing, as well as concerns 

from other agencies, the views of the Director, OWCP, regarding the scope of LHWCA exclusivity. The 

court agreed with KBR and the government that a causal relationship existed between the employees’ 

deaths and their employment. It refused to speculate, as the district court had, on the unknown attackers’ 

subjective intent or motives because the decedents’ employment supplied a plausible reason for their 

deaths. Thus, the court concluded the employees’ deaths resulted from the “willful act” of the “third-party” 
37

[LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT]

insurgents “because of [their] employment” by KBR in support of the American military effort in Iraq 

and therefor qualified as injuries covered by 33 U.S.C. § 902(2). Finally, the court declined to determine 

whether an exception to exclusivity exists for “intentional torts” because the facts of the case did not present 

the issue despite the plaintiffs’ allegations of intentional harm inflicted on the decedents by KBR. The court 

vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ state tort claims.

Special Fund Liability – 33 U.S.C. § 908(f). To encourage employers to hire partially-disabled workers, 

an employer’s liability to pay compensation for additional injuries to such workers is limited to a period 

of 104 weeks, after which liability shifts to the Special Fund. An employer’s right to this relief is, however, 

limited. One limitation is that the Special Fund is only liable for qualifying claims involving permanent 

disability; it does not pay for instances of temporary disability. In Pacific Ship Repair and Fabrication, Inc. v. 

Director, OWCP (Benge), 687 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit held the Special Fund is not liable 

for an employee’s period of temporary total disability that arises after the Fund has assumed the employer’s 

liability for a claim involving permanent partial disability. The injured employee was receiving permanent 

partial disability benefits from the Fund under section 908(f) when she underwent surgery for the 

compensable condition. After a nine-month period of convalescence, her condition stabilized but left her 

permanently totally disabled. The ALJ and BRB accepted the Director’s position that the employer should 

pay for the nine-month convalescence because it constituted the type of temporary disability from which 

the Fund is statutorily absolved. The court agreed. Deferring to the Director’s statutory interpretation, 

the court concluded a permanent partial disability is not irrevocably “permanent;” a post-surgical period 

of healing may be considered a temporary total disability regardless of the surgery’s ultimate outcome. 

Consequently, the court upheld the decisions below imposing liability on the employer for the employee’s 

nine months of temporary total disability, after which liability again reverted to the Fund for the permanent 

total disability.

Situs and Status, including extraterritorial reach of LHWCA – 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. For an adjoining area to qualify as a covered situs, it must have both a geographic and 

a functional nexus with maritime activity. Maritime “status” requires the employee to spend at least some 

part of his time performing tasks that are essential to maritime commerce.

In New Orleans Depot Services, Inc. v. Director, OWCP (Zepeda), 689 F.3d 400 (5th Cir. 2012) (Clement, 

J., dissenting), the Fifth Circuit considered whether an employee’s work repairing maritime shipping 

containers satisfied the situs and status requirements. The employee sustained work-related hearing loss 

while repairing shipping containers at the employer’s Chef Yard facility. The employer did not contest the 

geographic nexus of the facility as it was only 300 yards from navigable water, and the ALJ found the facility 

bore a functional relationship to maritime activity because containers used for marine transportation 

were stored and repaired at the site. The ALJ further found marine shipping-container repair was covered 

employment because, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, the work was integral to the loading 

and unloading process. The ALJ ordered NODSI to pay compensation; the BRB affirmed the decision. 

Applying a deferential standard of review to the ALJ’s factual findings, the majority held substantial 

evidence supported the ALJ’s situs and status findings. The dissenting judge suggested the majority’s 

reasoning improperly extends the reach of the LHWCA to occupations and geographic areas that have only 

a negligible relationship to maritime commerce. The Fifth Circuit has granted en banc review of the panel’s 

decision.

Keller Foundation/Case Foundation v. Tracy, 696 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2012), arose in the context of the “last 

employer” liability rule, which provides that an injured employee’s last employer is liable for all of an 
38 

employee’s LHWCA compensation even if injuries with previous employers contributed to the present 

disability. In this case, the employee’s last relevant maritime employment with Global International 

Offshore Ltd. occurred in the waters and ports of Singapore and Indonesia. The ALJ found the employee’s 

disability was the result of cumulative injuries with Global and a previous stateside maritime employer 

(Keller). The ALJ imposed liability on Keller, however, reasoning that the LHWCA did not cover Tracy’s 

overseas work in foreign ports. The ALJ also rejected the employee’s argument that Global should be 

estopped from denying LHWCA coverage because his employment contract specified that American 

workers’ compensation law would apply. The BRB affirmed, as did the Ninth Circuit. The court refused 

to extend application of the LHWCA to foreign territorial waters and their adjoining ports in the 

absence of clear evidence rebutting the “strong presumption that enactments of Congress do not apply 

extraterritorially.” Notwithstanding precedent extending the LHWCA’s application to the high seas and the 

Director’s position supporting coverage, the court found nothing in the LHWCA that indicated Congress 

intended to include the territorial waters of foreign sovereigns as part of the “navigable waters of the United 

States.” Finally, the court concluded the employee could not rely on equitable estoppel to gain LHWCA 

coverage. It found no evidence the employee had detrimentally relied on a clear promise from Global that 

the Act covered his employment. The court therefore affirmed the BRB’s decision holding that the LHWCA 

did not apply to the employee’s work for Global in foreign territorial waters.

Interest on Past-Due Compensation – 28 U.S.C. § 1961; Judicial Deference to Director’s Litigating 

Position. Although the LHWCA does not expressly authorize interest on an employee’s past due benefits, 

the Director, the Board, and the courts have long accepted that interest is owed. The Ninth Circuit granted 

rehearing en banc to reconsider its panel decision in Price v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc., 627 F.3d 

1145 (9th Cir. 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring). The panel majority had 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, i.e., a rate equal to the “the 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar 

week preceding the date of judgment.” The panel had further held that the Director’s policy of calculating 

interest on a simple, rather than compound, basis was permissible. In its decision, the panel adhered to 

prior Ninth Circuit law giving significant deference to the Director’s interpretation of the LHWCA even 

where that interpretation was expressed in legal briefs. In Price v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc., 

697 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (O’Scannlain, J., dissenting in part), the en banc court reconsidered 

both the interest issue and the level of deference the Director should receive for his statutory interpretation. 

The deference issue presented a choice between Chevron deference (under which courts generally defer 

to an agency’s interpretation of a statute so long as it is reasonable) and the less-deferential Skidmore

standard (under which an agency interpretation is only deferred to if the court finds it persuasive). After 

reviewing Supreme Court precedent on deference, the court concluded that the Director’s interpretation of 

the LHWCA as expressed in litigation briefs (as opposed to regulations or similar pronouncements) was 

entitled to only Skidmore deference. Even applying this lower standard, however, the court agreed with 

the panel that the Director’s application of the section 1961 interest rate was proper in the absence of any 

congressional guidance or a clear reason to adopt another rate. The court did reverse the panel with respect 

to the method of calculation holding that interest must be calculated on a compound basis (as section 1961 

provides) to adequately compensate employees for the delayed receipt of past-due benefits. The dissenting 

judge believed proper application of Skidmore deference required the court to accept the Director’s “longstanding, consistent practice” of allowing only simple interest because the issue presented a policy choice 

best left to the agency.
39

[LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT]

Benefits Review Board

During FY 2012, the Benefits Review Board (BRB) issued 204 decisions in cases arising under the LHWCA, 

of which twelve were published. Important holdings from some of these cases are summarized below.

Maritime Situs – 33 U.S.C. § 903(a). The LWHCA provides for benefits if an employee’s injury occurs 

at a covered “situs,” which includes the navigable waters of the United States, one of the “adjoining” areas 

enumerated in the statutory definition, or any other “adjoining” area customarily used for maritime 

purposes. In Ramos v. Container Maintenance of Florida, 45 BRBS 61 (2011), the BRB considered whether 

a cargo container repair facility located in a mixed-used area with no connection to maritime activity, 

and three miles from the nearest deepwater port or terminal, constituted an “adjoining” area customarily 

used for maritime purposes. Applying controlling court of appeals precedent holding that an “adjoining” 

area is one that is in geographical proximity to navigable waters and that has a functional relationship to 

maritime activities, the Board held that the facility was not a covered situs. The Board reasoned that the 

facility did not have a geographic nexus with the nearest port, given its inland location, and was located in 

an area that had no functional relationship to maritime activities because it was the only maritime facility 

in the vicinity. The Board further noted that the geographical nexus was not met simply because it was 

not feasible to locate the facility any closer to the port. Finally, the Board held that the possibility that the 

facility’s location would, at some future point, develop into a maritime services hub, or that port facilities 

would be moved farther inland, was not relevant to the situs inquiry. The conditions prevailing at the time 

of the claimant’s injury control. 

Maritime Status – 33 U.S.C. § 902(2). An injured employee must also satisfy the “status” requirement 

to be covered under the LHWCA. Status as a maritime employee requires the employee to spend at least 

some part of his employment performing tasks essential to maritime commerce. In Smith v. Labor Finders, 

46 BRBS 35 (2012), the injured employee was hired as a “beach-walker” to clean oil from the Deepwater 

Horizon spill that washed up on Horn Island, Mississippi, a 20 mile-long federally-protected wilderness 

preserve and recreational area in the Gulf of Mexico. The employee collected oil residue and other 

contaminants in bags for removal and disposal, but did not enter the water and was not required to load 

oil debris onto collection vessels. The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s finding that the employee did not satisfy the 

status requirement. It reasoned that the employee’s clean-up work did not have a commercial maritime 

purpose but was intended to restore the island to a recreational and wildlife area. The employee’s ancillary 

work activities, such as loading and unloading his tools and supplies from a transport vessel or shuttling 

other beach-walkers and their supplies around the island, did not enable maritime commerce, but merely 

facilitated the clean-up work. Finally, the loading of oil debris onto collection vessels, which the employee 

allegedly did on occasion, did not satisfy the status requirement because it was neither an assigned duty nor 

a responsibility assumed by his employer under its contract. 

Average Weekly Wage – 33 U.S.C. § 910(c). The LHWCA makes compensation payable in an amount 

based upon the worker’s average weekly wage (AWW) and provides three alternative methods for 

calculating AWW. In Jasmine v. Can-Am Protection Group, Inc., 46 BRBS 17 (2012), a case that arose under 

the Defense Base Act (DBA), the BRB addressed the third method, which affords the adjudicator discretion 

to determine an amount that reasonably represents the injured employee’s annual earning capacity at the 

time of the injury. The employee was injured in Afghanistan shortly after beginning work under a sixmonth contract. Prior to his injury, he had alternated regularly between stateside and short-term overseas 

employment for five years. In calculating the AWW, the ALJ used a blend of earnings received by the 

employee in work performed stateside and overseas. He declined to consider only the higher overseas 

earnings in making his calculation. The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s “blended” calculation as reasonable based 

on the facts of the case: the employee’s overseas employment was cyclical, the overseas contract was short-
40 

term, and the ALJ’s conclusion that the employee lacked a long-term commitment to overseas employment 

was rational. The BRB noted its prior precedent did not require an ALJ, when calculating AWW in a DBA 

case, to consider only the employee’s overseas earnings at the time of injury.

LONGSHORE AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT

FY 2011 FY 2012

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 95 96

Administrative Expenditures1

 $13.5 M $13.5 M

Lost-Time Injuries Reported 29,169 29,287

Total Compensation Paid2 $1,137.5 M $1,272.7 M

 Wage-Loss and Survivor Benefits $808.6 M $908.8 M

 Medical Benefits $328.8 M $363.8 M

Sources of Compensation Paid

 Insurance Companies2 $589.4 M $710.3 M

 Self-Insured Employers2 $408.5 M $425.6 M

 LHWCA Special Fund $125.3 M $122.7 M

 DCCA Special Fund $9.5 M $8.7 M

 DOL Appropriation $1.9 M $1.8 M

1

 Direct administrative costs to OWCP only, including Trust Funds; excludes DOL costs of $14.3 million in FY 2011 and $14.4 

million in FY 2012, respectively, for support provided by the OALJ, BRB, SOL, and OIG.

2

 Figures are for CY 2010 and CY 2011, 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.
ENERGY 

EMPLOYEES 

OCCUPATIONAL 

ILLNESS 

COMPENSATION 

PROGRAM 

ACT

[5]
42 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act

Introduction

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) was enacted in 

October 2000. Part B of the EEOICPA, effective on July 31, 2001, compensates current or former employees 

(or their survivors) of the Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and certain of its 

vendors, contractors and subcontractors, who were diagnosed with a radiogenic cancer, chronic beryllium 

disease, beryllium sensitivity or chronic silicosis as a result of exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica 

while employed at covered facilities. The EEOICPA also provides compensation to individuals (or their 

eligible survivors) awarded benefits by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Section 5 of the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). 

Part E of the EEOICPA (enacted October 28, 2004) replaced the former Part D and compensates DOE 

contractor/subcontractor employees, eligible survivors of such employees, and uranium miners, millers, 

and ore transporters as defined by RECA Section 5 for any occupational illnesses that are linked to toxic 

exposures in the DOE or mining work environment. 

On July 31, 2012, the Department of Labor (DOL) marked the eleventh anniversary of its administration 

of the EEOICPA. From the program’s inception to the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the Division of Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) has awarded compensation and medical benefits 

totaling over $8.5 billion under both Parts B and E of the EEOICPA. During this time, 81,053 employees 

or their families have received over $7.3 billion in compensation and over $1.2 billion in medical expenses 

associated with the treatment of accepted medical conditions. Part B compensation has totaled more than 

$4.6 billion (since 2001) while Part E compensation has totaled more than $2.7 billion (since 2005).

In FY 2012 alone, 5,803 employees or their families received $510.0 million in Part B compensation. In 

addition, 3,793 employees or their eligible survivors received $292.8 million in Part E compensation. A 

total of $340.7 million was paid in covered medical benefits in FY 2012 under both Parts B and E of the 

EEOICPA, bringing total benefits to over $1.1 billion for the year.

Administration

Implementation of the EEOICPA is a uniquely intergovernmental activity, involving the coordinated 

efforts of four federal agencies to administer: DOL, DOE, DOJ, and the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). DOL has primary responsibility for administering the EEOICPA, including adjudication 

of claims for compensation and payment of benefits for conditions covered by Parts B and E.

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 
43

[ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT]

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 twenty-two listed cancers incurred by an SEC worker was caused by radiation 

exposure at the SEC facility. For cases involving claimed cancers that are not covered by SEC provisions 

(that is, either cancers incurred at a non-SEC facility, a non-specified cancer incurred at an SEC facility, or 

an employee who did not have sufficient employment duration to qualify for the SEC designation), there is 

an intervening step in the process to determine causation called “dose reconstruction.” In these instances, 

once DOL determines that a worker was a covered employee and that he or she had a diagnosis of cancer, 

the case is referred to NIOSH so that the individual’s radiation dose can be estimated. After NIOSH 

completes the dose reconstruction and calculates a dose estimate for the worker, DOL takes this estimate 

and applies the methodology promulgated by HHS in its probability of causation regulation to determine if 

the statutory causality test is met. The standard is met if the cancer was “at least as likely as not” related to 

covered employment, as indicated by a determination of at least 50 percent probability.

Part E. The EEOICPA’s Part E establishes a system of Federal payments for employees of DOE contractors 

and subcontractors (or their eligible survivors) for illnesses determined to have resulted from exposure to 

toxic substances at a covered DOE facility. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters as defined by 

Section 5 of the RECA may also be eligible to receive Part E benefits. Benefits are provided for any illness 

if it can be determined that it was “at least as likely as not” that work-related exposure to a toxic substance 

was a significant factor in 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 
44 

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 

2012, DOL spent $49.6 million under Part B and $72.4 million under Part E to administer the EEOICPA. 

These funds supported 227 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff for Part B and 239 FTE for Part E. Additional 

funds in the amount of $0.3 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 2012, DEEOIC continued to receive a substantial number of new claims, creating a total of 6,067 

new cases (9,226 claims) for living or deceased employees under Part B, and 5,892 new cases (8,133 claims) 

under Part E. Each case represents an employee whose illness is the basis for a claim; however, a single case 
45

[ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT]

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, 2012, NIOSH had added 94 classes of employees to the four statutory classes in the SEC, which 

combined represent workers at 71 facilities. During FY 2012, NIOSH added 16 classes of employees at the 

following facilities: Medina Modification Center in San Antonio, Texas; Clarksville Modification Center 

in Clarksville, Tennessee; Hanford in Richland, Washington; Winchester Engineering & Analytical Center 

in Winchester, Massachusetts; Feed Materials Production Center in Fernald, Ohio; Electro Metallurgical 

Corporation in Niagara Falls, New York; Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; 

Linde Ceramics in Tonawanda, New York; Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina; Pantex Plant in 

Amarillo, Texas; W.R. Grace in Curtis Bay, Maryland; Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Ames Laboratory in 

Ames, Iowa; and Vitro Manufacturing in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. 

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 new recommended decisions. 

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 Contract 

Medical Consultant (CMC) 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. CMC referrals may also be necessary for impairment evaluations and for opinions 

regarding the causal relationship between a covered illness and claimed wage loss. On February 6, 2012, 

the program began using CMCs provided by an outside contractor. 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 and 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 forth by the claimant through either a review of the written record or an oral 
46 

hearing. During FY 2012, the FAB conducted 896 reviews of the written record and oral hearings for 1,043 

claimants. (These are not unique claim counts as a claimant may receive one review of the written record 

or one oral hearing covering both their Part B and Part E claims). For each claim, the FAB reviews the 

evidence of record, the recommended decision, and any objections/testimony submitted by the claimant or 

his/her representative, and issues a final decision either awarding or denying benefits. The FAB may also 

remand a decision to the district office, if further development of the case is necessary. A claimant may 

challenge the FAB’s final decisions by requesting reconsideration or reopening of the claim, or may file a 

petition for review of a final decision with the appropriate U.S. District Court. While Part B and Part E of 

the EEOICPA each have unique eligibility criteria, DEEOIC usually adjudicates all claims for benefits under 

Parts B and E as a unified claim for greater efficiency, and where possible, decisions are 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 2012, DEEOIC district offices issued 10,686 Part B claim-level recommended decisions and 

9,580 Part E claim-level recommended decisions. Further, the FAB issued 11,120 Part B claim-level final 

decisions and 7,444 Part E claim-level final decisions. DOL approved benefits in 59.3 percent of covered 

Part B claims and 87.7 percent of covered Part E claims that were issued a final decision during FY 2012. 

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 2012, as additional 

classes of employees were added by the Secretary of HHS to the SEC, DOL sponsored eight town hall 

meetings and traveling resource centers in: Albuquerque, New Mexico (meetings in both November 

2011 and August 2012); Cincinnati, Ohio; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Amarillo, Texas; Augusta, Georgia; 

Amherst, New York; and Hamilton, Ohio. During these town hall meetings and traveling resource centers, 

DEEOIC staff presented details about new SEC classes at Sandia National Laboratories, General Electric 

Company (Ohio), Y-12 Plant, Pantex Plant, Savannah River Site, Linde Ceramics Plant, and Feed Materials 

Production Center. DEEOIC records show that over 1,470 individuals attended these town hall meetings 

and traveling resource centers, and as a result of these meetings resource center staff submitted 176 new 

claims to DOL for adjudication. Further, in response to large attendance at past town hall meetings held in 

the Navajo Nation, DEEOIC conducts quarterly meetings in Shiprock, New Mexico and Kayenta, Arizona, 

to provide in-person assistance to Navajo and other EEOICPA claimants.

DEEOIC staff continued to participate in a joint outreach task group (JOTG) consisting of representatives 

from DOE, the Office of the Ombudsman for the EEOICPA, HHS’ NIOSH, the Ombudsman to NIOSH 

for the EEOICPA, and DOE’s Former Worker Medical Screening Program, to provide information and 

clarification regarding the EEOICPA to former nuclear weapons workers and their families. During FY 

2012, DEEOIC staff participated in a JOTG town hall meeting and traveling resource center in Upton, New 

York, which more than 200 individuals attended. The purpose was to provide former employees of the 

Brookhaven National Laboratory with information about a new class of employees added to the SEC of the 

EEOICPA. As a result of the event, resource center staff submitted 19 new claims to DOL for adjudication. 

Further, at the request of the Office of the Ombudsman for the EEOICPA, 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. 
47

[ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT]

Other examples of DEEOIC outreach activities conducted during FY 2012 include meetings with local 

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

other community initiatives. Additionally, during FY 2012 the district offices received 87,731 phone calls 

and the FAB received 4,276 phone calls. Nearly all calls that required a return call were returned within two 

business days.

During FY 2012, DEEOIC issued press releases informing individuals in New Jersey and California who 

worked at covered EEOICPA facilities where less than 50 claims have been filed of the benefits that may be 

available to them under the EEOICPA. Altogether this effort included notification to potential claimants at 

52 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 2012, two policy bulletins and eighteen 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; medical provider enrollment information; and an online web-based page, the 

Claimant Status Page, which allows claimants access to limited claims information from the Energy 

Compensation System (ECS), the 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.

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.

Procedure Manual. During FY 2012, 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 2012, 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. 

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 telephonebased assistance to individuals filing claims under the EEOICPA. In FY 2012, 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. 
48 

The RC staff assists with initial claim-filing and Part E occupational history development, and staff forwards 

all claims and associated documentation to the appropriate district offices. During FY 2012, the RCs helped 

claimants file 12,083 claims, received more than 82,400 telephone calls, conducted nearly 116,900 followup actions with claimants, and completed 5,656 occupational history interviews. RC staff also supported 

DEEOIC’s eight town hall meetings and traveling resource centers as well as the JOTG event in Upton, 

New York. Additionally, the RC staff 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 2012, the RC staff made over 27,400 contacts related to medical bills 

and enrolled 208 new medical providers into the program.

Web-Ex Video Conferencing System. During FY 2012, 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 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 of its district offices, the National Office FAB, and the 

National Office headquarters in Washington, D.C. In addition, DEEOIC has established Web-Ex systems 

in seven of the eleven resource centers located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, 

Ohio; North Augusta, South Carolina; Amherst, New York; Richland, Washington; and Las Vegas, Nevada 

with the plans to expand to the Espanola, New Mexico center. Since the FAB hearing representatives are 

no longer required to travel to locations near Web-Ex sites, substantial savings in terms of travel costs and 

staff time has resulted. Moreover, DEEOIC also is using the Web-Ex system to conduct its bi-weekly staff 

meetings (with all district office and FAB managers) and to continue claims examiner training in the areas 

of medical development, Site Exposure Matrices, and toxicology.

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) in cases where DOL has been unable to obtain reliable 

information through other available resources. In FY 2012, CPWR provided responses to 1,009 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.

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. During FY 2012, BAS launched the integrated, modernized and expanded missioncritical case management system. The new unified system, called the Energy Compensation System (ECS), 

replaced the Energy Case Management System (ECMS) and serves as a repository for data related to 

claims adjudication activities and compensation benefits. The separate Part B and Part E management 

systems had supported DEEOIC’s users since Part B’s (2001) and Part E’s (2005) inception. A component 

of ECMS is still being used, but DEEOIC should be able to transition completely to ECS in FY 2013. These 

enhancements ensure the effectiveness of administering compensation benefits to claimants to once again 

meet and exceed strategic and operational goals.

Secure Electronic Record Transfer. During FY 2012, staff from DEEOIC worked with staff from DOE to 

launch the Secure Electronic Record Transfer (SERT) system. SERT is a HHS-hosted environment where 

DOL, NIOSH, and other agencies that implement the EEOICPA can send and receive records and data in a 

secure manner. In addition to effectively securing large volumes of Personally Identifiable Information, the 

system reduces the time to complete EEOICPA claims and improves transparency between agencies. While 

the planning for SERT was conducted in FY 2012, the system went live on October 15, 2012.
49

[ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT]

Ombudsman. Under the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7385s-15, 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. In FY 2012, the term of the Office of the Ombudsman was again 

extended to October 28, 2014. 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.

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) Database. DEEOIC continues 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. In FY 

2012, DEEOIC updated the Internet Accessible SEM (IAS) that is viewable by the public. The IAS website 

contains the same information on each DOE and RECA site that is used by the DEEOIC, delayed by 

approximately six months for classification reviews by DOE. Working with DOE to achieve those reviews, 

the DEEOIC updated the IAS twice during FY 2012. Those updates provided the public information on 

2,544 additional toxic substances/chemicals. The DEEOIC also responded to 42 inquiries and suggestions 

received from the public on the IAS website. Major increases in chemical and process information were 

made using public input for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and the Mound Plant. During FY 

2012, the SEM project team updated 29 of 116 SEM matrices for DOE facilities and added a total of 873 

new toxic substances to the SEM database as a result of public and worker input. As of September 30, 2012, 

SEM housed information on 14,082 toxic substances/chemicals used at 123 DOE sites, 4,252 uranium 

mines, 49 uranium mills, and 23 uranium ore buying stations covered under the EEOICPA.

In addition to these activities, the National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine (NAS/IOM) began 

its scientific review of the Site Exposure Matrices during FY 2012 (see the Program Evaluation section of 

this report). Under an agreement between DEEOIC and NAS/IOM, NAS/IOM convened a panel of experts 

to review the scientific accuracy of occupational disease links to toxic substances with the SEM. 

National Library of Medicine (NLM) Haz-Map Occupational Health Database. DOL continued to 

provide funding to support further development and expansion of the 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 by relieving 

claimants of some of the burden of proof in their claims. The funding provided in FY 2012 allowed NLM to 

complete 1,442 new and updated health/chemical profiles for its Haz-Map database. 

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, 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).
50 

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 

2011, a goal of 110 days was set for Part B claims and DEEOIC exceeded this goal by taking an average of 

91 days to process initial claims. In FY 2012, a goal of 100 days was set, and DEEOIC exceeded this goal 

by taking an average of only 92 days to process initial claims under Part B of the EEOICPA.

•	 During FY 2011, a target of 145 days was set for Part E claims, and DEEOIC exceeded this goal by 

taking an average of 101 days to process initial claims. In FY 2012, a target of 125 days was set. Again, 

DEEOIC exceeded its goal, as 104 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 175 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, 92 percent of Part B and Part E decisions in FY 2012 were within the 

program standards, in excess of the goal of 90 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 2012. Timely and accurate medical bill processing is critical in the administration 

of the EEOICPA. In FY 2012, DEEOIC avoided $11.6 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 2012, the bill processing vendor had processed 427,534 EEOICPA bills and handled 48,543 

telephone calls. Authorizations for medical treatment were processed in an average of one workday and 

98.0 percent of bills were processed within 28 days. Enrollment of 4,038 new providers brought the total of 

enrolled providers for EEOICPA services to 134,500.
51

[ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT]

Program Evaluation

On November 10, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

announced its partnership with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)/Institute of Medicine (IOM) to 

further enhance the Site Exposure Matrices website, a tool that aids the adjudication of claims under the 

EEOICPA. The IOM first convened a panel of experts on January 23, 2012, to review the scientific rigor 

and organization of the SEM database. The committee also met on March 16, 2012, September 21, 2012, 

and November 7, 2012. Their focus was on the occupational disease links to workplace chemical usage/

exposure; the National Institutes of Health’s/NLM’s review process with regard to Haz-Map; and the review 

process used by the Haz-Map developer when including information in the Haz-Map database. The 

committee will identify strengths and weaknesses of the SEM and make recommendations for addressing 

any weaknesses. Items to be addressed in a report are:

•	 What, if any, occupational diseases that might have affected the DOE contractor workforce are missing 

from SEM?

•	 What, if any, links between occupational diseases and toxic substances present at DOE sites are missing 

from SEM?

•	 Is there additional literature (preferably human epidemiological in nature) that might be incorporated 

into SEM to strengthen or add to the existing links between toxic substances and occupational diseases? 

Are the existing links sufficiently robust?

•	 What, if any, other occupational disease databases might be used to supplement the Haz-Map 

information in SEM?

•	 How scientifically rigorous are the disease links contained in SEM and Haz-Map?

•	 What are the strengths and weaknesses of the NIH/NLM peer review process with regard to Haz-Map? 

How might this process be improved?

•	 Can any known (epidemiologically significant) synergistic effects between chemicals/chemicals 

or chemicals/radiation be placed in SEM? If so, what are the sources of these links and are they 

occupational in nature?

•	 What consistent process or approach could be used to consider a disease or cancer established when 

studies and inconclusive, inconsistent or conflicted in some way?

A report is to be issued in approximately 18 months from the convening of the first meeting.

Litigation

DEEOIC strives in every case to administer the Energy program in accordance with the law and governing 

regulations. During FY 2012, two U.S. Courts of Appeal issued decisions in cases arising under EEOICPA. 

Important points from those two cases are summarized below.

Fact-finding and drawing inferences. In Gomez, et al. v. United States, 459 Fed.Appx.701 (10th Cir. 

2012), three appellants sought to overturn the award of survivor benefits to another claimant under Part 

B of EEOICPA, because they believed that the factual evidence in the case file was insufficient to support 

the finding by DEEOIC that she was an adopted child of the deceased employee. This finding of fact by 

DEEOIC had cut off the potential eligibility of the appellants, who were grandchildren of the deceased 

employee, since under the statutory order of precedence for Part B, grandchildren are only eligible for 
52 

survivor benefits if there is no surviving child. In its opinion, the U.S. Court Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 

concluded that DEEOIC’s finding of fact that the claimant was an adopted child of the employee was neither 

arbitrary nor capricious, because while the case file did not contain a copy of the actual Order of Adoption, 

there was enough secondary evidence in the file to enable DEEOIC to properly infer the existence of such 

an Order. The court concluded, as did DEEOIC, that an official letter from the New Mexico Department 

of Public Welfare to the employee that referred directly to the Order as having been issued, and to the 

employee’s request for a birth certificate that listed him as the claimant’s father, together with some of the 

ancillary documentation that was needed to complete an adoption at that time in New Mexico, constituted 

substantial evidence that the claimant was the legally adopted daughter of the employee and thus entitled to 

the survivor benefits available under Part B of EEOICPA.

Interpretation of the term “incapable of self-support.” In Watson v. Solis, 693 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2012), 

the appellant had received survivor benefits under Part B of EEOICPA as the child of the deceased 

employee, but DEEOIC denied her claim under Part E because she did not meet the statutory definition 

of a “covered child,” based on its conclusion that she had failed to prove that she was “incapable of selfsupport” at the time her father had died, using an interpretation of that statutory term that only appeared 

in the Federal (EEOICPA) Procedure Manual. The appellant brought suit challenging that interpretation, 

which requires proof of either a physical or mental incapability, and when she lost in the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, she appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 

In its opinion, the court found that DEEOIC’s interpretation of the term “incapable of self-support” as 

covering only those individuals physically or mentally incapable of self-support was persuasive because 

it was consistent with other federal statutes and compensation programs. Also, the interpretation was in 

line with the common definitions of the word “incapable,” and avoided making other language within the 

statutory definition of “covered child” superfluous. And finally, whereas DEEOIC’s interpretation created 

a logical class of identifiable beneficiaries, the court found that the appellant’s proposed interpretation, 

which contained no limiting principle, was not a reasonable alternative. Because she had failed to submit 

any evidence to DEEOIC of a physical or mental condition that had rendered her incapable of self-support, 

the court concluded that DEEOIC had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying appellant’s claim for 

survivor benefits under Part E of EEOICPA.
53

[ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT]

ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT

Part B Part E1

FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used)2

 241 227 230 239

Administrative Expenditures3

 $51.5 M $49.6 M $73.7 M $72.4 M

Claims Created 9,981 9,226 7,441 8,133

Recommended Decisions (Covered Applications) 13,010 10,686 11,444 9,580

Final Decisions (Covered Applications) 13,337 11,120 10,904 7,444

Number of Claims Approved (Final) 7,264 6,594 5,791 6,529

Total Lump Sum Compensation Payments4 $573.5 M $510.0 M $338.6 M $292.8 M

Number of Medical Bill Payments 317,700 331,983 34,007 36,881

Total Medical Payments5

 $300.0 M $320.8 M $18.1 M $19.9 M

1

 Part E became effective during FY 2005 (October 28, 2004).

2

 The FTE decrease in Part B in FY 2012 was a result of hiring restrictions associated with the extended Continuing Resolution 

(CR) in 2011 plus a hiring freeze in FY 2012, and does not reflect the required staffing level. The hiring restrictions left the 

program understaffed in the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB), resulting in a significant backlog in FAB workload. The FTE in 

Part E, which is funded by an indefinite appropriation, was not affected by the CR in FY 2011, enabling DEEOIC to address 

staffing needs and maintain a higher FTE usage rate in FY 2012.

3

 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 2012, funding of 

$0.3 million for Part B ($0.2 million in FY 2011) and $0.8 million for Part E ($0.8 million in FY 2011) for the Office of the 

Ombudsman is excluded.

4

 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 $30.0 million 

in FY 2011 and $26.8 million in FY 2012, respectively.

5

 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.
APPENDIX

[6]
55

[APPENDIX]

Appendix

APPENDIX A. FECA Tables A1-A4 .................................................................................61

APPENDIX B. Black Lung Tables B1-B6 .......................................................................64

APPENDIX C. LHWCA Tables C1-C5 .............................................................................71

APPENDIX D. EEOICPA Tables D1-D5 ..........................................................................76

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.
56 

APPENDIX A. FECA Tables A1-A4

Table A1

Federal Employees’ Compensation Rolls

FY 2003 - FY 2012 (Cases at End-of-Year)

 Fiscal Year

Roll Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Periodic Roll 58,621 57,817 60,709 50,362 51,125 50,263 49,672 49,517 49,488 49,436 

 Long-Term Disability 53,099 52,367 55,257 44,910 46,258 45,604 45,162 45,263 45,382 45,490 

 Death 5,522 5,450 5,452 5,452 4,867 4,659 4,510 4,254 4,106 3,946 

Table A2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program 

Summary of Claims Activity 

FY 2003 - FY 2012

 Fiscal Year

Claim Activity 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

INCOMING CASES

Cases Created 168,174 162,965 151,690 139,874 134,360 134,013 129,690 127,526 121,290 115,697 

 Traumatic 142,325 138,521 129,427 119,082 114,592 115,715 112,640 111,121 105,688 99,832 

No Lost 

Time 84,368 80,018 74,071 67,127 64,896 66,812 64,130 61,067 56,412 47,700

Lost Time 57,957 58,503 55,356 51,955 49,696 48,903 48,510 50,054 49,276 52,132 

Occupational 

Disease 25,747 24,320 22,114 20,592 19,633 18,190 16,951 16,300 15,501 15,757

Fatal Cases 102 124 149 200 135 108 99 105 101 108

Wage-Loss 

Claims Initiated 24,245 24,189 21,455 19,819 19,104 19,187 18,808 19,861 20,239 19,806

HEARINGS AND REVIEW

Total Requests 

for Hearing 6,751 8,132 6,757 6,241 6,556 6,584 6,438 6,501 6,739 6,412 

Total Hearing 

Dispositions 6,743 7,682 6,961 7,424 7,581 6,789 7,085 6,758 6,991 6,961 
57

[APPENDIX A: FECA TABLES A1-A4]

Table A3

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program Obligations 

FY 2003 - FY 2012 ($ thousands)

 Fiscal Year

Type of Obligation 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Obligations $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 $3,185,067

Total Benefits 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 3,024,890

Compensation 

Benefits 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 1,955,968

Medical Benefits 658,121 703,571 672,006 668,205 743,124 781,594 847,373 912,796 913,141 928,957 

Survivor Benefits 130,506 130,537 140,068 129,234 135,683 139,391 137,554 137,560 139,220 139,965 

Total Administrative 

Expenditures 129,636 133,781 126,336 135,134 144,141 142,650 142,177 157,527 153,579 160,177 

Salaries and Expenses 86,358 86,253 86,811 88,435 90,113 89,416 90,049 98,116 98,158 98,029 

Fair Share 43,278 47,528 39,525 46,699 54,028 53,234 52,128 59,411 55,421 62,148

 
58 

Table A4

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program Chargeback Costs, 

by Major Federal Agency 

CBY 2003 - CBY 2012 ($ thousands)

 Chargeback Year1

Federal Agency 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Costs $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 $3,005,857 

U.S. Postal 

Service 846,876 852,945 840,141 884,078 924,138 978,629 1,055,221 1,101,200 1,240,014 1,320,011 

Department of 

the Navy 245,461 245,145 237,791 244,318 244,037 242,440 240,004 234,251 236,471 239,855 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 157,315 155,391 156,170 164,091 166,087 175,637 179,922 182,212 186,254 200,569 

Department of 

the Army 181,298 177,250 174,660 180,248 178,993 179,503 181,775 177,236 176,941 178,289 

Department of 

Homeland Security 83,975 121,089 138,342 156,734 158,529 161,070 164,611 160,502 166,514 178,037 

Department of 

the Air Force 135,509 129,229 124,516 126,663 130,298 131,059 131,301 129,323 135,596 133,305 

Department of 

Justice 66,131 74,011 80,090 89,156 94,395 98,825 104,772 104,573 109,850 117,253 

Department of 

Transportation 94,682 92,659 92,687 92,830 93,609 97,931 99,251 97,687 97,457 102,258 

Department of 

Agriculture 72,312 69,245 68,681 70,185 70,802 72,869 73,670 72,876 72,621 73,875 

Department of 

Defense 65,429 63,816 62,996 65,460 62,630 60,737 63,051 63,581 65,331 69,788 

All Other Agencies 374,299 359,003 358,120 366,948 370,578 374,164 375,537 373,666 388,381 392,617 

1

 A year for chargeback purposes is from July 1 through June 30.
59

[APPENDIX B: BLACK LUNG TABLES B1-B6]

APPENDIX B. Black Lung Tables B1-B6

Table B1

Part C Black Lung Claim Decisions at the District Director Level

FY 2003-FY 2012

Year

Total 

Approvals 

TF

Total 

Approvals 

RO

Total 

Approvals1

Merit 

Denials2, 4

Non-merit 

Denials 

TF3, 4

Non-merit 

Denials 

RO3, 4

Total 

Denials

Total 

Decisions

Approval 

Rate

FY 2003 142 531 673 7,943 7,943 8,616 7.81%

FY 2004 126 589 715 5,780 5,780 6,495 11.01%

FY 2005 118 477 595 4,064 4,064 4,659 12.77%

FY 2006 118 521 639 4,109 4,109 4,748 13.46%

FY 2007 146 462 608 3,739 3,739 4,347 13.99%

FY 2008 114 446 560 2,186 473 1,197 3,856 4,416 12.68%

FY 2009 91 397 488 2,086 113 910 3,109 3,597 13.57%

FY 2010 73 432 505 2,096 126 978 3,200 3,705 13.63%

FY 2011 110 645 755 3,298 167 1,961 5,426 6,181 12.21%

FY 2012 97 632 729 2,565 229 1,780 4,574 5,303 13.75%

TF - Black Lung Disability Trust Fund liability

RO - Responsible coal mine operator liability 

1

 Approvals do not include conversions of miner to survivor benefits under 422(l) of the Act.

2

 Merit denials: claims that received a Proposed Decision & Order (PDO) after all evidence is considered. 

3

 Non-merit denials: claims that are abandoned or withdrawn prior to a PDO.

4

 Merit/non-merit categories were not quantified until FY 2008.
60 

Table B2

Distribution of Part C Black Lung Claims and 

Disbursements, by State

FY 2012

State Total Claims

 Received1

MBO

Claims2 In Payment3 Total Benefits($ 000)4

Alabama 35,483 18 579 $4,851 

Alaska 153 0 4 34 

Arizona 2,192 2 82 687 

Arkansas 3,863 1 101 846 

California 6,512 1 136 1,140 

Colorado 7,140 4 245 2,053 

Connecticut 1,010 0 30 251 

Delaware 789 1 7 59 

District of Columbia 287 0 33 276 

Florida 12,075 23 470 3,938 

Georgia 1,720 2 106 888 

Hawaii 16 0 0 0 

Idaho 254 0 12 101 

Illinois 32,428 10 663 5,555 

Indiana 18,345 12 476 3,988 

Iowa 5,161 0 110 922 

Kansas 2,185 1 29 243 

Kentucky 99,963 337 3,955 33,138 

Louisiana 357 0 6 50 

Maine 45 0 1 8 

Maryland 6,731 8 186 1,558 

Massachusetts 249 1 14 117 

Michigan 10,556 6 221 1,852 

Minnesota 148 0 6 50 

Mississippi 371 1 15 126 

Missouri 4,685 0 101 846 

Montana 864 2 14 117 

Nebraska 130 0 2 17 

Nevada 447 1 28 235 

New Hampshire 27 0 2 17 

New Jersey 4,321 4 136 1,140 
61

[APPENDIX B: BLACK LUNG TABLES B1-B6]

State Total Claims

 Received1

MBO

Claims2 In Payment3 Total Benefits($ 000)4

New Mexico 2,472 1 67 561 

New York 4,055 0 111 930 

North Carolina 3,737 12 270 2,262 

North Dakota 160 0 2 17 

Ohio 54,868 32 1,603 13,431 

Oklahoma 3,810 2 80 670 

Oregon 629 0 14 117 

Pennsylvania 138,915 190 5,953 49,879 

Rhode Island 40 0 2 17 

South Carolina 1,015 3 93 779 

South Dakota 54 0 4 34 

Tennessee 22,206 50 755 6,326 

Texas 1,781 4 80 670 

Utah 4,291 5 155 1,299 

Vermont 50 0 3 25 

Virginia 47,067 207 2,728 22,857 

Washington 1,594 2 36 302 

West Virginia 118,546 316 5,271 44,165 

Wisconsin 458 0 15 126 

Wyoming 2,671 0 89 746 

All Other 451 1 5 42 

TOTAL 667,377 1,260 25,106 $210,358 

1

 All filings since July 1, 1973, including terminated, nonapproved, and Medical Benefits Only (MBO) claims.

2

 Active MBO claims as of 9/30/12. 

3

 Active claims in payment status, excluding MBO claims, as of 9/30/12. 

4

 Disbursements of income and medical benefits for all claims, including claims paid by the Trust Fund and 

claims in interim pay status. Does not include benefits paid by responsible coal mine operators and insurers.

Note: Data in column no. 1 may not be consistent with changes from previous years due to a change in 

computer systems.

Table B2 (continued)

Distribution of Part C Black Lung Claims and 

Disbursements, by State

FY 2012
62 

Table B3

Part C Black Lung Claims, by Class of Beneficiary

FY 2003 - FY 20121

 Number of Beneficiaries2

Class of Beneficiary 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Primary Beneficiaries:

Miners 14,773 13,398 12,012 10,857 9,744 8,654 7,699 6,967 6,633 6,375 

Widows 32,615 30,810 29,110 27,366 25,556 23,690 21,913 20,495 19,014 17,553 

Others 1,238 1,247 1,248 1,258 1,241 1,230 1,214 1,209 1,182 1,178 

Total Primary 

Beneficiaries 48,626 45,455 42,370 39,481 36,541 33,574 30,826 28,671 26,829 25,106 

Dependents of Primary Beneficiaries:

Dependents of 

Miners 11,131 10,020 9,004 8,088 7,205 6,442 5,726 5,202 5,028 4,939 

Dependents of 

Widows 1,052 1,006 944 874 840 777 723 681 647 593 

Dependents of 

Others 353 238 213 146 140 132 122 113 110 106 

Total Dependents 12,536 11,264 10,161 9,108 8,185 7,351 6,571 5,996 5,785 5,638 

Total, All 

Beneficiaries 61,162 56,719 52,531 48,589 44,726 40,925 37,397 34,667 32,614 30,744 

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. 
63

[APPENDIX B: BLACK LUNG TABLES B1-B6]

Table B4

Part C Black Lung Benefits Program Obligations

FY 2003 - FY 2012 ($ thousands) 

 Fiscal Year

Type of Obligation 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Obligations $1,046,303 $1,053,246 $1,061,698 $1,060,006 $1,068,295 $1,070,958 $7,152,627 $661,798 $754,975 $808,713

Total Benefits1 370,389 346,864 329,933 307,067 291,310 273,232 254,987 238,423 227,397 210,358 

Income Benefits2 307,371 292,555 279,965 265,365 252,020 235,347 221,298 207,801 193,038 179,404 

Medical Benefits3 63,018 54,309 49,968 41,702 39,290 37,885 33,689 30,622 34,359 30,953 

Administrative Costs4 55,332 55,803 56,872 57,975 59,772 58,257 57,712 58,618 57,513 59,006

Interest Charges5 620,582 650,579 674,894 694,964 717,214 739,469 0 0 0 0

Bond Payments6 341,939 364,757 400,905 431,486

Principal 337,472 353,424 379,286 394,287

Interest 4,467 11,333 21,619 37,199

One-Yr. Obligation 

Pmts.7 60,160 107,863 

Principal 60,000 107,749 

Interest 160 114

Repayable Advances8 525,000 497,000 446,000 445,000 426,000 426,000 6,497,989 60,000 107,749 214,000

Cumulative Debt9 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 6,064,860 

 Principal 6,158,245 5,864,821 5,533,284 5,245,248 

 Capitalized

 Interest 212,335 424,925 629,793 819,612

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 Emergency Economic Stabilization 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. 
64 

Table B5

Funding and Disbursements of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

FY 2012 ($ thousands)

Funding Disbursements

 Month

Coal Excise 

Tax Revenue 

Treasury 

Advances Reimburse.1 Total

Income 

Benefits2

MEDICAL BENEFITS Total 

Benefits

Admin. 

Costs

Interest 

on 

Advances

Bond 

Payments4

One-Year 

Oblig. 

Payments5 Diagnostic Treatment Total 3

Oct. 

2011 $13,754 $0 $685 $14,439 $15,220 $492 $1,908 $17,619 $3,853 $0 $0 $0 $21,473 

Nov. 

2011 57,980 0 686 58,666 15,176 564 2,133 17,873 4,077 0 0 0 $21,950 

Dec. 

2011 55,417 0 1,091 56,508 15,682 387 2,573 18,642 3,668 0 0 0 $22,309 

Jan. 

2012 46,648 0 401 47,049 15,052 504 1,970 17,526 7,586 0 0 0 $25,113 

Feb. 

2012 70,934 0 869 71,803 15,159 533 2,638 18,330 4,918 0 0 0 $23,247 

March 

2012 58,730 0 545 59,275 15,512 444 2,045 18,001 5,238 0 0 0 $23,239 

April 

2012 61,901 0 1,375 63,276 14,365 498 2,053 16,916 4,881 0 0 0 $21,796 

May 

2012 60,930 0 2,683 63,613 14,951 552 3,088 18,591 5,074 0 0 0 $23,665 

June 

2012 49,682 0 874 50,556 14,732 413 1,514 16,658 4,881 0 0 0 $21,539 

July 

2012 53,463 0 924 54,387 14,674 393 1,795 16,861 4,976 0 0 0 $21,837 

August 

2012 30,796 0 1,331 32,127 14,397 506 2,158 17,061 5,072 0 0 0 $22,133 

Sept. 

2012 68,866 214,000 1,038 283,903 14,486 385 1,410 16,281 4,782 0 431,486 107,863 $560,412 

TOTALS $629,101 $214,000 $12,500 $855,601 $179,405 $5,670 $25,284 $210,358 $59,006 0 $431,486 $107,863 $808,713 

 

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).

5

 Repayment of prior year advances, including interest on those advances, to the U.S. Treasury as mandated by the EESA.

 

 
65

[APPENDIX B: BLACK LUNG TABLES B1-B6]

Table B6

Claims filed under Part C of the Black Lung Benefits Act 

FY 2003-FY 2012

 

Fiscal Year1 New Claims Refiled Claims Successor Claims Survivor 

Conversions Total

2003 2,594 1,926 704 982 6,206

2004 1,992 1,832 665 856 5,345

2005 2,087 1,869 611 804 5,371

2006 1,720 1,837 563 642 4,762

2007 1,873 1,889 570 581 4,913

2008 1,670 1,598 522 480 4,270

2009 1,597 1,807 506 444 4,354

2010 2,683 3,088 636 637 7,044

2011 2,410 2,383 635 631 6,059

2012 2,176 2,140 494 559 5,369

 

1

 Current regulations became effective January 19, 2001.

Refiled Claim: the claimant has filed at least once before.

Successor Claim: a subsequent claim filed on a miner’s record by another person.

Conversion: some dependent survivors are automatically entitled to benefits. 

 
66 

APPENDIX C. LHWCA Tables C1-C5

Table C1 

Total Industry Compensation and Benefit Payments 

Under LHWCA1

CY 2002 - CY 20112 ($ thousands) 

 

 Calendar Year

Payments By: 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Self-Insured 

Employers $310,940 $309,843 $322,520 $325,694 $368,744 $325,544 $340,336 $388,088 $408,534 $425,581 

Insurance 

Carriers 246,603 262,753 278,887 325,027 367,625 456,773 504,348 551,716 589,387 710,330 

Total Payments $557,543 $572,596 $601,407 $650,721 $736,369 $782,317 $844,684 $939,804 $997,921 $1,135,912

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.

 

 
67

[APPENDIX C: LHWCA TABLES C1-C5]

Table C2 

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 

Period NAWW Maximum Payable1 Minim Payable Annual Adjustment (% Increase in NAWW)2

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 

10/01/11-9/30/12 647.60 1,295.20 323.30 3.05 

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 under section 10(f) of LHWCA, as amended. Maximum increase not applicable to 

DCCA cases (see note 1/, above).
68 

Table C3

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Expenditures1 

FY 2003 - FY 2012 ($ thousands) 

LHWCA DCCA

Expenditures ($)

Number 

of Second 

Injury 

Cases

Expenditures ($)

Number 

of Second 

Injury 

 CY Total Cases

Second 

Injury 

Cases2

Pre Amend. 

Cases3 Rehab.4 Ohter5 Total 

Second 

Injury 

Cases2

Pre 

Amend. 

Cases3 Rehab.4 Ohter5

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 

2012 122,667 111,143 1,341 2,323 7,861 3,946 8,726 8,005 475 1 245 473 

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 2003 - 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. 
69

[APPENDIX C: LHWCA TABLES C1-C5]

Table C4

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Assessments1

CY 2003 - CY 2012 ($ thousands) 

LHWCA DCCA

 CY

Total Industry 

Assessments2

Preceding Year Total 

Industry Payments3

Assessment 

Base Yr. Assessment2

Preceding Year Total 

Industry Payments

Assessment 

Base Yr.

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

2012 124,000 770,364 CY 2011 8,000 3,085 CY 2011

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. 
70 

Table C5

Summary of Case Processing Activities Under LHWCA1 

FY 2003 - FY 2012

 

 Fiscal Year

Adjudication Level 

and Case Status 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

District Offices

Pending Inventory 

of Cases 5,495 6,051 6,375 6,338 8,5633 7,726 8,075 7,700 12,974 9,294

OALJ

Carryover from 

Previous FY 2,980 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 2,324 2,410 2,502

New Cases 3,036 2,926 2,763 2,413 2,614 2,657 2,696 2,884 3,068 2,967

Total Docket 6,016 5,443 5,118 4,731 4,598 4,780 4,864 5,208 5,478 5,469

 (Dispositions) 3,499 3,088 2,800 2,747 2,475 2,612 2,540 2,798 2,976 2,974

Pending Inventory 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 2,324 2,410 2,502 2,495

BRB

Carryover from 

Previous FY 208 267 222 211 182 152 134 114 130 148

New Cases 332 297 288 248 241 226 229 200 201 166

Total Docket 540 564 510 459 423 378 363 314 331 314

 (Dispositions) 282 355 304 288 282 260 256 195 198 204

Pending Inventory 2672 2222 2112 1822 1522 1342 1142 1302 1482 1142

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

 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. 

 
71

[APPENDIX C: LHWCA TABLES C1-C5]

APPENDIX D. EEOICPA Tables D1-D5 

Table D1 PART B

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 20121

Case Status/Claims Activity CASE2 CLAIM3

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2012 83,513 133,540 

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2012 67,797 113,451

 Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication Branch (FAB)4 62,066 95,669 

 Final Approved 38,507 59,672 

 Final Denied 23,559 35,997 

 Recommended Decisions by District Offices5 1,456 3,238 

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 573 1,360 

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 883 1,878 

 Completed Initial Processing - Referred to NIOSH 1,484 6,169

 

 Pending Initial Processing In District Office6 2,791 8,375

Lump Sum Compensations 35,620 55,610 

Total Payment Amounts $4,601,639,477 

1

 Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception through September 30, 2012.

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.

 
72 

Table D1 PART E

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 20121

Case Status/Claims Activity CASE2 CLAIM3

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2012 73,507 112,335 

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2012 61,422 84,351 

Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication

Branch (FAB)4 54,428 64,205 

Final Approved 32,406 38,936 

Final Denied 22,022 25,269 

Recommended Decisions by District Offices5 1,702 2,721 

Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 680 1,036 

Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 1,022 1,685 

Completed Initial Processing - Referred to NIOSH 1,082 7,493 

Pending Initial Processing In District Office6 4,210 9,932 

Compensation Payments (Unique Cases and Claims)7 23,552 25,443 

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $2,730,336,673 

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 12,895 13,901 

Total Lump Sum Payment Amts. $1,549,500,714 

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 2,646 3,186 

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts. $127,011,638 

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 11,525 11,530 

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $1,053,824,321 

1

 Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception through September 30, 2012.

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.

7

 A Case or Claim that has payment in more than one category is counted in each category, so the total number of 

unique Cases or Claims with compensation payment will not equal the total number of unique Cases or Claims in 

each payment category. 

 
73

[APPENDIX D. EEOICPA TABLES D1- D5]

Table D2 PART B

Processing Activity During FY 2012 on All EEOICPA 

Cases/Claims1

Processing Activity CASE2 CLAIM3

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2012 6,067 9,226 

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2012 5,803 8,945 

 Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2012 7,302 4 11,120 

 Final Approved 4,380 6,594 

 Final Denied 2,922 4,526 

Modification Orders in FY 2012 0 0

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2012 7,010 10,686 

 Recommended Decision only, to Approve 4,521 6,933 

 Recommended Decision only, to Deny 2,489 3,753 

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2012 1,547 2,454 

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2012 3,738 5,803 

 ECMS-Generated Payments 3,638 5,667 

 Non ECMS-Generated Payments 100 136 

Remands 474 767 

1

 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2012 only, therefore the number of activities reported 

do not add up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY 2012. (Many activities recorded occurred 

on cases/claims received prior to FY 2012).

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 2012.
74 

Table D2 PART E

Processing Activity During FY 2012 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims1

Processing Activity CASE2 CLAIM3

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2012 5,892 8,131 

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2012 5,675 7,711 

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2012 6,519 4 7,444 

Final Approved 5,752 6,529 

Final Denied 767 915 

Modification Orders in FY 2012 0 0

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2012 8,191 9,580

Recommended Decision only, to Approve 5,970 6,854

Recommended Decision only, to Deny 2,221 2,726

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2012 1,279 1,337

Compensation Payments in FY 2012 (Unique Cases and Claims)5 3,636 3,797

Total Compensation Payment Amts. (ECS and Non-ECS) $292,754,044

Non-ECS Generated Payments 75 76 

Total Compensation Payment Amts. (Non-ECS)6 $6,306,488

ECS Generated Payments 3,561 3,721

Total Compensation Payment Amts. (ECS) $286,447,556

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,255 1,376 

Total Compensation Payment Amts. (ECS only) $136,050,145 

Wage-Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 374 439 

Total Wage-Loss Payment Amts. (ECS only) $13,104,439 

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 2,132 2,134 

Total Impairment Payment Amts. (ECS only) $137,292,972 

Remands 893 1,055

1

 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2012 only, therefore the number of activities reported do not add 

up to the total number of cases/claims received during FY 2012. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims 

received prior to FY 2012).

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 2012.

5

 A Case or a Claim that has payment in more than one category is counted in each category, so the total number of unique 

Cases or Claims with compensation payment will not equal the total number of unique Cases or Claims in each payment 

category.

6

 Non-ECS generated payments are not separated out by Lump Sum, Wage Loss, and Impairment categories.
75

[APPENDIX D. EEOICPA TABLES D1- D5]

Table D3 Part B 

EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Payments by 

Category, Program Inception Through September 30, 2012

Category Number of

Approved Cases1

Percentage of Total 

Final Approvals

Number of Paid 

Claimants1

 Total Compensation 

Paid2 ($ thousands)

Percentage of Total 

Compensation Paid

Radiation 

Exposure Comp. 

Act (RECA)3

7,247 20.5% 10,897 $363,533 8.5%

Special Exposure 

Cohort Cancer 

(CN)

15,374 43.6% 25,343 2,291,602 53.5%

Dose 

Reconstructed 

Cancer (CN)

8,457 24.0% 11,903 1,263,837 29.5%

Beryllium Disease 

(CBD)4 2,071 5.9% 2,728 307,744 7.2%

Beryllium 

Sensitivity-Only 

(BS)

1,773 5.0% N/A N/A N/A

Silicosis (CS) 90 0.3% 116 12,850 0.3%

Multiple 

Conditions5 288 0.8% 307 43,050 1.0%

TOTAL 35,300 100.0% 51,294 $4,282,6166 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 9/30/2012, but 

payments were not issued.

2

 Represents total lump sum compensation payments from EEOIC program inception through September 30, 2012.

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 10 cases that could not be attributed to the designated categories. 

 

 
76 

Table D4 Part B 

EEOICPA Cases With Final Decision to Deny, Program Inception 

Through September 30, 2012 

Reason for Denial Number of Cases1

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE Facility, Atomic Weapons Employer, or 

Beryllium Vendor During a Covered Time Period 2/ 5,070 

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 2/ 1,667 

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part B of EEOICPA 2/ 10,639

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability that the Cancer is Related to 

Employment is Less Than 50 Percent 15,869 

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement 6,030 

TOTAL 39,275 

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. 
77

[APPENDIX D. EEOICPA TABLES D1- D5]

Table D4 Part E 

EEOICPA Cases With Final Decision to Deny, Program Inception 

Through September 30, 2012 

Reason for Denial Number of Cases1

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE Facility and/or Did Not Work During Covered Time 

Period, or the Employee Worked for an Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) or Beryllium Vendor2 4,089 

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary3 7,996 

Migrated Denials from ECMS to ECS 14,445 

Cancer Not Work Related4 880 

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement 6,697

TOTAL 34,107 

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. Part E of the EEOICPA covers DOE contractor or subcontractor employees only. Employees 

who worked for an AWE or beryllium vendor are not eligible for benefits under Part E of the EEOICPA. 

3

 Non-covered applications. Per EEOICPA Amendments of 2004, adult children are not covered under Part E.

4

 Probability of Causation is less than 50 percent. 

 
78 

Table D5 Part B

Most Prevalent Non-Covered Medical Conditions, 

EEOIC Program Inception Through September 30, 2012

Non-Covered Medical Condition Percentage of All Denials 

For This Condition1

Other Lung Conditions 21%

Heart Condition/Failure/Attack/Hypertension 10

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease & Emphysema 9

Asbestosis 9

Renal Condition or Disorder (Kidney Failure, Kidney Stones) 6

Hearing Loss 6

Benign Tumors, Polyps, Skin Spots 4

Diabetes 4

Neurological Disorder 3

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) 20

No Condition Reported on Claim Form or Blank Condition Type 2

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.
OFFICE 

DIRECTORY

[7]
80 

Office Directory

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

Deputy Director, Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs

Gary A. Steinberg

Division of Administration and Operations 

Michael Tyllas, Director

Division of Financial Administration

Joseph Shellenberger, Director

Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dfec)

Douglas C. Fitzgerald, Director

Julia Tritz, Deputy Director

Tirzah Leiman-Carbia, Deputy Director

Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dcmwc)

Michael Chance, Director

Gerald Delo, Deputy Director

Division of Longshore and Harbor 

Workers’Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc)

Antonio Rios, Director

Richard Stanton, Chief, Branch of financial 

Management, Insurance and Assessments

Jennifer Valdivieso, Chief, Branch of Policy, 

Regulations and Procedures

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/energy)

Rachel P. Leiton, Director

Christy A. Long, Deputy Director

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
81

[DIRECTORY]

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

Region III – Mid-Atlantic

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia)

Regional Office

John McKenna, 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

Benjamin Taddeo, Office Manager

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
82 

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, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

400 West Bay Street, Room 943

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4776

Jacksonville FECA District Office

Tisha Carter, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

400 West Bay Street, Room 826

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-366-0100

Jacksonville Longshore District Office

Charles Lee, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

Charles E. Bennett Federal Bldg.

400 West Bay Street, Room 63A, Box 28

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4788

Jacksonville Energy District Office

James Bibeault, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

400 West Bay Street, Room 722

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4705 (Toll-Free 1-877-336-4272)

Pikeville Black Lung District Office

Roger Belcher, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

164 Main Street, Suite 508

Pikeville, KY 41501-1182

606-218-9300 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4599)

Mt. Sterling Black Lung Sub-District Office

Vicky C. Ashby, Office Manager

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

402 Campbell Way

Mt. Sterling, KY 40353

859-497-8501 (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
83

[DIRECTORY]

(Oak Ridge Site)

Courtney Scarbrough, 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.go

Region V/VII – Midwest

(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, 

overseas cases)

Regional Office (Chicago)

Robert Sullivan, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

230 South Dearborn Street, 8th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

312-789-2800

Chicago FECA District Office

James Polcyn, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

230 South Dearborn Street, 8th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

312-789-2800

Cleveland FECA District Office

Karen Spence, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

1240 East Ninth Street, Room 851

Cleveland, OH 44199

216-902-5600

Cleveland Energy District Office

Annette Prindle, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

1001 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 350

Cleveland, OH 44114

216-802-1300 (Toll-Free 1-888-859-7211)

Columbus Black Lung District Office

Lorraine Rardain, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

1160 Dublin Road, Suite 300

Columbus, OH 43215-1052

614-469-5227 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3771)

Kansas City FECA District Office

Jack Mercer, 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)

Tina Higginbotham, 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)

Regional Office (Dallas)

Dean Woodard, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

525 South Griffin Street, Room 407

Dallas, TX 75202

972-850-2409

Dallas FECA District Office

Gloria Taylor, Acting District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

525 South Griffin Street, Room 100

Dallas, TX 75202

214-749-2320
84 

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

713-651-4650

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 

Nigel Strozier, 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

John Sullivan, 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) 

Donna Casados, 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

415-241-3489

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
85

[DIRECTORY]

Long Beach Longshore District Office

Marco Adame, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 6230

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

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)

Mary Garza, 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 
ADDENDUM

[8]
[DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE]

87

Addendum

FECA Benefit Expenditures 

In Millions of Constant Dollars*

FY 2003 $1309.3

FY 2004 $1330.8

FY 2005 $1309.2

FY 2006 $1232.1

FY 2007 $1277.2

FY 2008 $1263.4

FY 2009 $1309.2

FY 2010 $1340.5

FY 2011 $1358.6

FY 2012 $1343.2

*Actual Obligations in current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners 

and clerical 

workers, U.S. city average, all items), 1982-1984=100.

Black Lung Part C Benefit Expenditures 

In Millions of Constant Dollars*

FY 2003 $206.6

FY 2004 $189.6

FY 2005 $174.4

FY 2006 $156.4

FY 2007 $145.2

FY 2008 $129.9

FY 2009 $122.2

FY 2010 $111.8

FY 2011 $103.5

FY 2012 $93.4

*Current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical 

workers, U.S. city average, all items), 1982-1984=100.

Longshore Benefit Expenditures 

In Millions of Constant Dollars*

CY 2002 $317

CY 2003 $318.5

CY 2004 $326

CY 2005 $340.7

CY 2006 $373.6

CY 2007 $385.8

CY 2008 $400.2

CY 2009 $448.3

CY 2010 $466.4

CY 2011 $512.7

*Current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical 

workers, U.S. city average, all items), 1982-1984=100.

Note: Includes total industry compensation and benefit payments under 

LHWCA and its exensions as reported on a calendar year basis. 

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Expenditures

FY 2003-FY 2012

In Millions of Constant Dollars*

FY DCCA LHWCA 

2003 $6.2 $73.5

2004 $6.0 $73.9

2005 $5.6 $71.1

 2006 $5.2 $67.9

2007 $5.0 $65.7

 2008 $4.7 $60.3

 2009 $4.8 $63.6

 2010 $4.4 $60.1

2011 $4.3 $57.1

 2012 $3.9 $54.5

*Current dollars deflated by CPI-W (urban wage earners and clerical 

workers, U.S. city average, all items), 1982-1984=100.
www.dol.gov/owcp