Material contained in this publication is in 

the public domain and may be reproduced, 

fully or partially, without permission of the 

Federal Government. Source credit is 

requested but is not required. Permission is 

required only to reproduce any copyrighted 

material contained herein.

This material will be made available to 

individuals upon request.

(202)693-0031

Internet address: 

www.dol.gov/owcp
OWCP

Submitted to Congress 2010

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Annual Report to Congress FY 2007



Page

Director’s Message 2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 5

Black Lung Benefits Act 15

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act 29

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 43

Appendix 55

Office Directory 80

Contents
2

The Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP) had another successful 

year in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. In the process 

of meeting or exceeding eight of the nine 

indicators under the Department of Labor’s 

Government Performance Results Act 

(GPRA) goal to “minimize the human, social, 

and financial impact of work-related injuries 

for workers and their families” and the large 

majority of operational plan goals, each of the 

four OWCP programs performed effectively 

within the high standards that have been set.

The Energy Employees’ Occupational 

Illness Compensation program successfully 

completed and issued initial determinations 

on 100 percent of the backlog of over 25,000 

cases inherited from the Department of 

Energy in 2005. In addition, Energy program 

standards on the timely processing of Part 

B and Part E final decisions were exceeded 

again, and a new goal was added to track 

average days for completing the initial 

processing of claims. A significant milestone 

was also achieved in FY 2007 with the 

passing of the $3 billion mark in the payout 

of benefits in the Energy program’s sixth 

full year of operation. In the Part E program 

alone, payments totaled $833 million in a little 

over two years compared to approximately 

$1 million in payouts during its four years 

of existence prior to becoming a part of the 

Department of Labor, OWCP program.

The Federal Employees 

Compensation (FEC) program met four of 

its five challenging GPRA goals. Customer 

services improved in all areas of the FECA 

claims’ hearings and review process, with 

time periods to issue decisions after a case 

hearing or a review of the written record 

falling substantially compared to the previous 

year. In addition, all levels of communication 

Director’s 

Message
3

between the FEC program and its customers 

continued to show improvements, with 

positive results in call wait times and the 

measurement of overall customer satisfaction. 

Another important metric is the continuing 

and significant downward trend in the 

number of Federal workers filing injury 

claims. This decline to the current level 

of less than 135,000 claims seems clearly 

related to the Safety, Health, and Return-toEmployment (SHARE) initiative, which was 

extended by the President for an additional 

three years through FY 2009. This joint 

OWCP/Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration effort has contributed to the 

20 percent reduction in the number of claims 

received during the past four years. All four 

of the SHARE goals were met governmentwide. Nearly 74 percent of injury notices 

were filed by non-Postal agencies in a timely 

fashion, exceeding the goal by over 22 

percent, while these same agencies averaged 

just over 46 lost production days against the 

49 day target for this difficult goal.

The Black Lung program exceeded 

its claims processing timeliness goal by 23 

days, averaging only 224 days to process a 

claim from the date of receipt to the issuance 

of a proposed decision. In addition, nearly 

82 percent of all Black Lung claims with an 

eligibility decision were resolved with no 

pending requests for further action, again 

exceeding that program goal for the year.

The Longshore program performed 

well again in FY 2007, successfully handling a 

three-fold increase in Defense Base Act (DBA) 

cases with over 15,000 DBA claims filed this 

year compared to the approximately 5,000 

that were filed in 2006. Longshore’s GPRA 

dispute resolution target was exceeded again, 

even as the scope of this important outcome 

metric was expanded to include additional 

dispute activities. The average time to 

resolve disputed issues dropped to 230 days, 

nearly three weeks below the target.

The solid performance improvements 

achieved in each of our four programs are 

directly related to the determined efforts of 

the OWCP staff. In achieving a large majority 

of its high performance GPRA goals while 

handling increasing workloads and meeting 

new challenges head on, OWCP staff once 

again demonstrated their dedication and 

expertise to provide the best possible services 

to our customers and stakeholders.

Shelby Hallmark

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

5

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 2.7 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 
6

Officer Training Corps Cadets, Job Corps, Youth Conservation Corps enrollees, and 

non-Federal law enforcement officers when injured under certain circumstances 

involving crimes against the United States.

For over 90 years, the Federal Employees’ Compensation (FEC) program has 

continuously evolved to meet its commitment to high quality service to employees 

and Federal agencies, while minimizing the human, social and financial costs of 

work-related injuries.

Benefits and Services

The primary goal of the FEC program is to assist 

Federal employees who have sustained workrelated 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 timelyfiled 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) 2007, the FEC program 

provided 253,000 workers and survivors 

approximately $2.6 billion in benefits for workrelated injuries, illnesses or deaths. Of these benefit 

payments, nearly $1.7 billion were for wage-loss 

compensation, $743 million for medical and 

rehabilitation services, and $136 million for death 

benefit payments to surviving dependents.

The FECA is the exclusive remedy 

by which Federal employees may obtain 

disability, medical, and/or survivor benefits 

from the Federal government for workplace 

injuries. Decisions for or against the payment 

of benefits may be appealed to the Employees’ 

Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB), an 

independent body in the Department of Labor 

(DOL). Program activities are carried out in the 12 

program district offices around the country.

Funding

Benefits are paid from the Employees’ 

Compensation Fund. Agencies are billed each 

August for benefits paid for their employees from 

the Fund, and most agencies, other than the U.S. 

Postal Service (USPS) and non-appropriated fund 

agencies, include those chargeback costs in their 

next annual appropriation request to Congress. 

Remittances to the Fund are not made until the 

first month of the subsequent fiscal year (or later, if 

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.
7

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

Expenses for a small number of cases 

are not charged back to employing agencies, but 

also are covered by the DOL appropriation. For 

FY 2007, these non-chargeback expenses were 

approximately $31.6 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, that did not contain 

mechanisms for billing employers.

For FY 2007, administrative expenditures 

for the FEC program totaled $154.9 million. Of 

this amount, $144.1 million, approximately 

5.3 percent of total program costs, were direct 

appropriations to the DOL’s Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP), including 

$90.1 million in salaries and expenses and $54.0 

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 $10.8 

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.

Government Performance 

Results Act

In FY 2007, the Division of Federal Employees’ 

Compensation (DFEC) achieved four of the five 

indicators under DOL’s Government Performance 

Results Act (GPRA) goal to “minimize the human, 

social, and financial impact of work-related injuries 

for workers and their families.” As a result:

DFEC exceeded its Lost Production Days rate 

(LPD per 100 employees) target of 49 days for 

all government, less U.S. Postal Service cases, by 

reducing lost days to 46.3. LPD for U.S. Postal 

Service cases was 135.2 days, which failed to meet 

its FY 2007 target of 129.8 days.

Through use of Periodic Roll Management, 

DFEC produced $17.1 million in first-year savings, 

exceeding its target of $8 million.

Benefit Outlays 

Under Feca FY 2007

Total Benefits  $2,563 Millio

Long Term Disability (Wage-Loss) 52.6% $1,348 Milli

Medical Benefits 29.0% $ 743 Million

Temporary Disability (Wage-Loss) 13.1% $ 336 Millio

Death Benefits 5.3% $ 136 Million

*Actual Obligatio
8

The program achieved a rate of increase of 

8.1 percent in per-case medical costs in FECA 

compared to an increase of 8.3 percent for 

nationwide health care costs.

Targets were met by DFEC in four key 

communication performance areas: average 

caller wait times; callback response times; calls 

responded to on same day; and call handling 

quality.

Safety, Health, and Return-toEmployment Initiative

In 2004, President George W. Bush launched 

the Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment 

(SHARE) Initiative for Federal Executive Branch 

agencies. SHARE was established to run for fiscal 

years 2004 through 2006, with the Department of 

Labor leading the Initiative. Secretary of Labor 

Elaine L. Chao assigned the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration and the OWCP with 

responsibility for administering and monitoring 

program efforts.

To reaffirm the Administration’s 

commitment to improving safety and health in 

the Federal sector, President Bush extended the 

SHARE initiative for three years on September 

29, 2006. This was a very important step, since 

OWCP cannot meet its GPRA goals for the FEC 

program without the continuing improved 

performance of its partners in the employing 

agencies. The goals and goal-setting methodology 

for SHARE II remain essentially the same; FY 2003 

agency performance data will remain the baseline 

for the first three goals of the initiative. However, 

all agencies were required to achieve at least a 

50 percent timely filing rate under Goal 3 in FY 

2007. Those agencies for which a five percent per 

year improvement from their FY 2003 baseline 

resulted in a FY 2007 goal higher than 50 percent, 

continued to have their performance tracked 

against that formula-driven target, except that no 

agency’s goal was required to exceed 95 percent. 

In FY 2008 and FY 2009, the minimum thresholds 

will rise to 55 percent and 60 percent, respectively. 

The Goal 4 target also has been slightly modified. 

Lost production days (LPD) figures were revised 

due to a data system change which yields a 

more accurate compilation of lost days. FY 

2006 outcomes were recalculated using the new 

computation methodology and will be used as 

the new baseline for LPDs. Agencies with FY 2006 

baseline LPDs at or below 15 days will be charged 

with maintaining an LPD rate of 15 or less. All 

other agencies will have their progress measured 

against the formula-driven targets of reducing 

LPDs by one percent per year.

OWCP has completed the fourth year 

of data collection and performance tracking 

under the SHARE Initiative. As in FY 2006, the 

Federal government as a whole (less the U.S. 

Postal Service) was successful in achieving all four 

goals by the end of FY 2007. Six departments, 

up from two departments in FY 2006, met 

each of the performance measures in FY 2007. 

OWCP continued to collaborate with agencies in 

achieving two of the Initiative’s goals: to increase 

the timely filing of injury notices; and to reduce lost 

production days due to workplace injuries and 

illnesses by at least one percent per year. 

A major accomplishment in the fourth 

year of SHARE was the continued improvement 

in the timely filing of injury notices. OWCP’s 

ability to act promptly on medical bills and 

prevent any interruption of income is directly 

and critically related to the early submission of 

claim forms. By filing 73.9 percent of their cases 

with OWCP within 14 days, non-Postal agencies 

exceeded the FY 2007 goal by more than 22 

percent.

With non-Postal agencies averaging 46.3 

lost days per 100 employees versus a goal of 49 lost 

days, the SHARE goal for LPDs was met for the 
9

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

second time in FY 2007. The achievement 

of this difficult goal in FY 2007 

demonstrates that agencies are focusing 

on the long-term changes needed to 

improve their disability case management 

programs.

iFECS-Based Case 

Adjudication and 

Management

FY 2007 was a productive year for the 

FEC program as it continued operational 

stability with the expanded capabilities 

afforded by the successful deployment 

of its new claims adjudication and 

management system, the integrated Federal 

Employees’ Compensation System (iFECS). 

Enhancements and application adjustments to the 

new system continued, helping claims examiners 

become more effective and efficient in case 

adjudication and management of claims.

Less than 135,000 new injury and illness 

claims were filed under FECA in FY 2007. Eightyfive 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. 

For traumatic injury claims, 97.5 percent were 

adjudicated within 45 days of the day OWCP 

received notice of the injury. In FY 2007, 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, 

94.0 percent were adjudicated within 90 days. 

Of the more complex non-traumatic cases, 83.3 

percent were adjudicated within 180 days.

Quality Case Management was 

implemented in the FEC program in FY 1993 as 

another means of reducing the number of days 

an injured worker was out of work. Every injury 

case with a wage-loss claim filed and no returnto-work date is reviewed for assignment to an 

early intervention nurse contracted by the FEC 

program. From the earliest stages after the injury, 

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 2007, 8,686 injured Federal 

employees were returned to work as a result 

of this early nurse and vocational rehabilitation 

intervention. Due, in part, to these successful 

early intervention actions, the average length of 

disability (lost production days) was 148 days. 

Additionally, vocational rehabilitation counselors 

arranged training and successfully placed an 

additional 240 injured workers into non-Federal 

employment.
10

While early intervention is crucial, the FEC 

program continued to dedicate resources to the 

thorough review of long-term disability cases. The 

Periodic Roll Management (PRM) staff arranges 

second opinion medical examinations, vocational 

rehabilitation, and placement assistance, with a 

goal of reemploying injured workers. PRM has 

proven to be extremely successful, with outcomes 

exceeding OWCP’s target estimate of $8 million. 

In FY 2007, staff achieved compensation savings 

of $17.1 million. Of the cases that were screened, 

benefits were adjusted or terminated in nearly 

1,070 cases where beneficiaries’ disabilities had 

either resolved or lessened to the point that return 

to work was possible. Savings from these actions 

will continue in subsequent years.

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued 

to achieve improvements in operating efficiencies. 

During FY 2007, DFEC avoided $51.3 million in 

additional costs due to further improvements in 

the editing of bills, which in turn reduced costs 

charged back to agencies.

Timely and accurate medical bill 

processing is a critical element in administration 

of the FECA. In FY 2007, the bill processing 

system was enhanced to have the Correct Coding 

Initiative run in real-time, which expedited the 

adjudication of professional bills. 

In FY 2007, the vendor processed 

4,538,626 bills and handled 863,478 telephone calls. 

Authorizations for treatment were processed in 

an average of 1.2 work days and 99.8 percent of 

bills were processed in 28 days. Enrollment of 

20,726 new providers brought the total of enrolled 

providers to 227,786.

Hearings and Review

If an individual disagrees with the claims 

examiner’s formal decision on a claim, he or she 

may request from the Branch of Hearings and 

Review that an oral hearing or a written review 

of the record take place. In FY 2007, the Branch 

received a total of 6,556 incoming requests for 

reviews of the written record and oral hearings, 

and issued a total of 7,581 decisions.

In FY 2007, customer service and 

turnaround times improved in all measured areas. 

The period of time between receipt of a case file 

and the issuance of a remand or reversal before 

a hearing decreased by an average of 10 percent, 

from 94 days in FY 2006 to 85 days in FY 2007. For 

those case files where a hearing was held, the time 

period for issuance of a decision decreased by 13 

percent, from an average of 239 days in FY 2006 

to 209 days in FY 2007. For decisions emanating 

from a review of the written record, the Branch 

improved by an average of seven percent, from 99 

days in FY 2006 to 92 days in FY 2007.
11

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

Performance Assessment

Under the Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(PART) process in 2002, DFEC was rated 

“Moderately Effective.” Key recommendations 

of the PART review included pursuing actions to 

improve the performance of the program. In FY 

2007, these actions included:

Working with Congress to update the benefit 

structure, adopt best state practices, and convert 

benefits for retirement-age individuals to a typical 

retirement level.

Acting upon recommendations from an 

independent evaluation to improve FECA early 

intervention and return-to-work processes, 

including identification and adoption of state and 

industry best practices.

Assessing the recently implemented electronic 

case management system to determine long-term 

program benefits.

Legislative Reform

Work continued with the Congressional 

committees to find sponsors and to work out 

timing for the proposed reform of the FECA 

which was included in the President’s FY 2008 

Budget. The goals of the reform were to enhance 

incentives for injured employees to return to work; 

address retirement equity issues; and update 

and make other benefit changes. Specifically, the 

reform proposed to:

Convert compensation for new injuries or new 

claims for disability to a lower benefit at the Social 

Security retirement age.

Move the 3-day waiting period during which an 

injured worker is not entitled to compensation to 

the point immediately after an injury.

Feca Benefits Charged T

Employing Agenci

Chargeback Year 20

Chargeback Total: $2,494 Million

Postal Service $ 924 Millio

Defense $ 616 Million*

Veterans Affairs $ 166 Millio

Homeland Security $ 159 Milli

Justice $ 94 Million

Transportation $ 93 Million

Agriculture $ 71 Millio

All Other $ 371 Milli

*Defense Includes Navy ($244M), Army ($179M), Air Force ($13

and Dept. of Defense ($63M)

Note: The sum of individual agencies may not equal total due to roundin
12

Change the way that schedule awards are paid 

to allow uniform lump sum payments to Federal 

employees eligible for such awards.

Eliminate augmented compensation for 

dependents but raise the basic benefit level for all 

claimants.

Allow OWCP to recover the costs, estimated 

at over $2 million annually, paid by responsible 

third parties to FECA beneficiaries during the 

continuation of pay period. 

Increase benefit levels for funeral expenses from 

$1,000 to $5,000. 

Increase benefit levels for disfigurement resulting 

from work injury, and

Identify unreported work earnings and receipt of 

Federal Employees Retirement System retirement 

benefits through regular database matching with 

the Social Security Administration.

FECA Performance Study

An independent study of DFEC program 

performance and effectiveness in 2004 produced 

key recommendations to improve the DFEC 

early case intervention program. In particular, 

DFEC was advised to strengthen disability case 

management during the COP period immediately 

following an injury while the cases remain in the 

primary jurisdiction of their Federal employing 

agencies. To pursue that recommendation, in FY 

2006 DFEC enlisted the services of a contractor 

with established subject matter expertise in the 

field of workers’ compensation to assess its current 

COP Nurse Program.

In FY 2007, the contractor reviewed 

DFEC’s organizational structure and goals and 

initiated an extensive literature search to identify 

best practices used by state and private sector 

organizations in early disability management. The 

team developed targeted questions and conducted 

interviews with DFEC claims examiners, staff 

nurses, and key members of other Federal 

agencies. The contractor finalized its evaluation 

of the program’s current disability management 

program at the end of FY 2007. DFEC will 

pursue analysis of the recommendations and 

implementation options in FY 2008 to: improve 

the current program, adopt effective practices 

and assist employing agencies to create reemployment opportunities, facilitate job retention, 

better process new injury claims and manage 

injury caseloads. Best practices, new approaches, 

and efficiency recommendations resulting from 

the performance study also will directly support 

the objectives of the SHARE initiative to reduce 

Federal injury rates, speed submission of claims, 

and reduce lost production days.

Services to Claimants and 

Beneficiaries

Quality customer service and customer 

satisfaction are key components of DFEC’s 

mission and “Pledge to Our Customers.” Of the 

more than 1.5 million calls to the DFEC district 

offices, 32 percent were handled by Customer 

Service Representatives (CSRs) in the 12 district 

office call centers. Calls were answered in an 

average of 2.13 minutes, which is well below the 

goal of three minutes. This represents a decrease 

in the average wait time of 13 seconds compared 

to FY 2006.

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 
13

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

a standardized Quality Monitoring scorecard, 

document the CSRs’ performance. The results 

of quality silent monitoring coupled with local 

telephone survey results show that 97.8 percent 

of callers received courteous service. Remaining 

nearly constant, use of clear and understandable 

language was reported in 98.9 percent of calls and 

97.7 percent of calls met knowledge and accuracy 

standards. The goal of 95 percent was exceeded in 

each of these quality categories.

Sixty-six percent of calls to the district 

offices were responded to on the same day they 

were received, exceeding the goal by one percent. 

The average response time for all calls in FY 2007 

was less than one day (0.92), which represents the 

most significant customer service improvement. 

Ninety-three percent of all calls were responded to 

in two days or less.

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

 FY 2006 FY 

Number of Employees 

(FTE Staffing Used) 870 894

Administrative Expenditures 1 $135.1 M $144.1 M

Cases Created 139,874 134,436

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 19,819 19,104

Total Compensation and Benefits 

(Actual Obligations) 2 $2,418.8 M $2,563.1 M

Number of Medical Bills Processed 4,844,286 4,538,626

1 OWCP expenditures; excludes DOL support costs, but includes “fair share” capit

expenditures of $46.7 million in FY 2006 and $54.0 million in FY 2007, respectivel

2 Compensation, medical, and survivor benefits. 

15

Black Lung Benefits Act

Introduction

The Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation (DCMWC) completed its 

thirty-fourth year administering Part C of the Black Lung program in 2007. 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) to require the use of simplified interim eligibility criteria for all claims 
16

filed with SSA, and to transfer the receipt of new claims to the Department of Labor 

(DOL) in 1973. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) assumed 

responsibility for processing and paying new claims on July 1, 1973. Until recently, 

most of the claims filed prior to that date remained within the jurisdiction of SSA. 

Further amendments in the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 (Public Law 

95-239) mandated the use of interim criteria to resolve old unapproved claims. 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.

Current administration of the Black Lung Part C program is governed by 

legislation enacted in 1981. These amendments 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 in 

2002, an Administration proposal to place the administering responsibility for both 

programs with DOL was made permanent under the Black Lung Consolidation of 

Administrative Responsibilities Act.

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 Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, monthly and retroactive 

benefit payments totaled $252.0 million.

The Part C program also provides both 

diagnostic and medical treatment services for 

totally disabling pneumoconiosis. Diagnostic 

testing is provided for all miner-claimants to 
17

Black Lung Benefits Act

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 2007 were $39.3 

million. This includes payments of $3.7 million 

for diagnostic services, $33.9 million for medical 

treatment, and $1.7 million in reimbursements to 

the United Mine Workers of America Health and 

Retirement Funds for the cost of treating Black 

Lung beneficiaries. Approximately 280,000 bills 

were processed during the year.

Total Black Lung Part C program 

expenditures for all benefits in FY 2007 were 

$291.3 million, a decrease of $15.8 million from FY 

2006. In FY 2007, benefits were provided from the 

Trust Fund to approximately 33,000 beneficiaries 

each month.

State workers’ compensation laws 

require coal mine operators to obtain insurance 

or qualify as a self-insured employer to cover 

employee benefit liabilities incurred due to 

occupational diseases that are covered by state 

law. If state workers’ compensation is paid for 

pneumoconiosis, any Federal black lung benefit 

received for that disease is offset or reduced by the 

amount of the state benefit on a dollar-for-dollar 

basis. As of September 30, 2007, there were 1,316 

Federal black lung claims being offset due to 

concurrent state benefits.

As an additional benefit to claimants, the 

law provides for payment of attorneys’ fees and 

legal costs incurred in connection with approved 

benefit claims. The fees must be approved 

by adjudication officers. During the past year 

DCMWC processed 230 fee petitions and paid 

approximately $0.7 million in attorneys’ fees from 

the Trust Fund.

In FY 2007, 1,133 claims were forwarded 

for formal hearings before the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and 483 

claims were forwarded on appeal to the Benefits 

Review Board (BRB). At the end of FY 2007, the 

OALJ had 1,930 claims pending while 617 were 

pending before the BRB.

In the Black Lung Part B program, 

nearly 37,000 active beneficiaries (with over 3,600 

dependents) were receiving approximately $23 

million in monthly cash benefits as of September 

30, 2007. Part B benefits in FY 2007 totaled nearly 

$290 million. DCMWC completed more than 

6,200 maintenance actions on Part B claims during 

the year, on average less than one week from 

notification.
18

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.

Trust Fund revenues consist of monies 

collected from the industry in the form of an 

excise tax on mined coal that is sold or used by 

producers; funds collected from responsible mine 

operators (RMOs) for monies they owe the Trust 

Fund; payments of various fines, penalties, and 

interest; refunds collected from claimants and 

beneficiaries for overpayments; and repayable 

advances obtained from Treasury’s general fund 

when Trust Fund expenses exceed revenues. 

Excise taxes, the main source of revenue, are 

collected by the Internal Revenue Service and 

transferred to the Trust Fund. In FY 2007, the 

Trust Fund received a total of $639.2 million in 

tax revenues. An additional $4.2 million was 

collected from RMOs in interim benefits, fines, 

penalties, and interest. Total receipts of the Trust 

Fund in FY 2007 were nearly $1.1 billion, including 

$426 million in repayable advances from the 

Department of the Treasury.

Total Trust Fund disbursements during FY 

2007 were almost $1.1 billion. These expenditures 

included $291.3 million for income and medical 

benefits, $717.2 million for interest payments on 

repayable advances from the Treasury, and $59.8 

million to administer the program ($33.6 million 

in OWCP direct costs and $26.2 million for legal 

adjudication and various financial management 

and investigative support provided by the Office 

of the Solicitor, the OALJ, the BRB, Office of the 

Inspector General, and the Department of the 

Treasury).

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. These tax rates will 

remain until December 31, 2013, 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. 
19

Black Lung Benefits Act

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 2007, DCMWC avoided $258,000 in 

medical costs due to further improvements in the 

editing of bills.

In FY 2007, the vendor processed 280,373 

Black Lung bills. A total of 99.8 percent of bills 

were processed within 28 days. The number of 

telephone calls handled was 39,920. Enrollment of 

1,449 new providers brought the total of enrolled 

providers to 22,479.

Performance Assessment

DCMWC was reviewed in 2003 using the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool. The Black 

Lung program achieved a rating of “Moderately 

Effective,” and the assessment noted that the 

program purpose is clear, that the program 

effectively targets its resources, has ambitious 

long-term performance measures, and maintains 

a relatively low (less than two percent) erroneous 

payment rate. To build on this, the assessment 

provided a number of recommendations for 

improvement that DCMWC began to implement 

in FY 2004. These initiatives included a renewed 

focus on reducing the Trust Fund’s debt (see below 

for details), evaluating personnel utilization and 

allocation, and setting a schedule of annual targets 

for improving performance in both Government 

Performance Results Act (GPRA) goals and 

claims processing times, targets that were met 

or exceeded in FY 2007. Also, a comparison and 

selection of medical cost indices to help establish 

a cost containment plan and the recommended 

study of the program were completed.

An independent consulting firm 

completed its evaluation of the Black Lung 

Program’s outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and 

efficiencies in order to compare them to those of 

similar compensation programs. This evaluation 

had been renewed for a second year after the 

consultant delivered its preliminary assessment 

in FY 2005. In FY 2007, the consultant completed 

and delivered a statistical projection of claim 

trends to 2020 and a study of best practices 

of other compensation systems. DCMWC is 

evaluating these studies and has incorporated 

some recommendations into recent and ongoing 

revisions of the program’s District Office 

Accountability Review procedures.
20

Legislative Proposal to Address 

Trust Fund Insolvency

Although tax receipts to the Trust Fund were 

sufficient to cover benefits, current operating costs 

and some interest charges, the Trust Fund needed 

to borrow $426 million from the Treasury to pay 

the balance of the FY 2007 interest due. By the end 

of FY 2007, the Trust Fund’s cumulative debt to the 

Treasury was $10.1 billion. Since benefit payments 

for Black Lung claims in the late 1970’s and early 

1980’s far exceeded revenues, the Trust Fund 

was forced to draw on repayable advances from 

the Treasury to meet benefit obligations. While 

operating costs are now covered by revenue, the 

Trust Fund’s debt continues to climb. The Trust 

Fund now must borrow to cover its debt service, 

which amounted to more than $717 million at the 

end of FY 2007.

To remedy this financial problem, DOL 

and Treasury proposed a legislative package 

which would:

Provide for the restructuring of the outstanding 

Trust Fund debt, much of which was incurred at 

the higher Treasury interest rates prevalent during 

the 1980’s, thereby taking advantage of current 

and lower Treasury interest rates.

Extend until the debt is repaid the current Trust 

Fund excise tax levels ($1.10 per ton for coal mined 

underground; $0.55 per ton for surface), which are 

set to decline after December 31, 2013. The tax rate 

will revert to the lower (original 1978) rates of $0.50 

per ton for underground-mined coal sold and 

$0.25 per ton for surface in the year following the 

elimination of the Trust Fund’s debt.

Provide a one-time appropriation to the Trust 

Fund to cover the Treasury’s loss of income caused 

by the restructuring.

After consultation with interested parties 

and the staffs of the appropriate Congressional 

committees, DOL and Treasury staffs prepared a 

revised version of the proposed legislation that was 

previously transmitted to Congress in 2000, 2002, 

and 2004, and 2005. Secretary Chao and Treasury 

Secretary Snow transmitted the revised legislative 

proposal to the Congress on April 4, 2007. As of the 

end of FY 2007, no bill had been introduced in the 

House of Representatives regarding the proposal.

Government Performance 

Results Act

In FY 2007, 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.” DCMWC achieved 

its goal to:

Increase by 13 percent over the baseline established 

in FY 2001 the percentage of Black Lung benefit 

claims filed under the revised regulations, for 

which, following an eligibility decision by the 

district director, there are no requests for further 

action from any party pending one year after 

receipt of the claim.

In FY 2007, 81.5 percent of claims were 

resolved with no pending requests for further 

action (against a target of 80 percent). 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.

DCMWC also achieved its second goal, 

which had previously been tracked but was first 

added as a GPRA goal in FY 2007, to:

Reduce the average time required to process a 

claim from the date of receipt to the issuance of a 

Proposed Decision and Order (PDO) to no more 

than 247 days.
21

Black Lung Benefits Act

By the end of FY 2007, the average 

processing time required to process a claim from 

the date of receipt to the date of the PDO had been 

reduced to 224 days.

The total number of new claims increased 

3.2 percent from 4,760 in FY 2006 to 4,913 in FY 

2007. These claim numbers include survivor’s 

conversions that are automatically awarded. 

Conversion claims numbered 640 in FY 2006 and 

580 in FY 2007. The number of claims awaiting 

issuance of a Schedule for the Submission of 

Additional Evidence by a district director grew 

slightly from 1,461 at the end of FY 2006 to 1,601 

at the close of FY 2007. The number of claims 

pending a PDO declined from 1,053 to 966.

Operation and Maintenance of 

Automated Support Package

DCMWC’s Automated Support Package 

(ASP) is provided through a contract. The ASP 

includes a client-server computer system for all 

black lung claims, statistical and data processing, 

medical bills processing, telecommunications 

support, and administrative functions.

During FY 2007, DCMWC completed 

migration of the ASP system to the ESA/

DITMS IT infrastructure. This migration 

required conversion of the legacy database, batch 

programs, and desktop 

executables to conform 

to the new computing 

environment. 

Conversion of the 

subsystem began in 

FY 2006 as DCMWC 

worked closely with 

ESA to ensure a smooth 

transition to the new 

architecture.

Compliance Assistance

Section 423 of the BLBA requires that each coal 

mine operator subject to the BLBA secure payment 

of any benefits liability by either qualifying as a 

self-insurer or insuring the risk with a stock or 

mutual company, an association, or a qualified 

fund or individual. Any coal mine operator failing 

to secure payment is subject to a civil penalty of up 

to $1,100 for each day of noncompliance.

According to FY 2007 estimates by DOL’s 

Mine Safety and Health Administration, there 

were 2,030 active coal mine operators subject 

to the requirements of the BLBA. Under the 

BLBA, the Secretary of Labor can authorize a 

coal mine operator to self-insure after an analysis 

of the company’s application and supporting 

documents. At the close of FY 2007, 72 active 

companies were authorized by the Secretary 

of Labor to self-insure. These self-insurance 

authorizations cover approximately 790 

subsidiaries and affiliated companies.

Management Of Ssa

Part B Black Lung Claims

FY 2007

Professional and Timely Claims Maintenance Services

Provided to Part B Claimants by DCMWC Included:

Completing Over 6,200 Maintenance Actions,

With Average Completion Time of Less

Than One Week from Notification

Managing the Expenditure of Nearly

$290 Million in Benefits

DCMWC was Responsible for Almost 37,000 Active Part B Cases
22

The Responsible Operator (RO) Section 

staff in DCMWC’s national office is specifically 

assigned to record the existence of coal mine 

operators and their insurance status. The staff 

answers frequent written, telephone, and e-mail 

inquiries from operators and insurance carriers 

and evaluates requests for self-insurance.

During FY 2007, the RO section sent 

form letters to 881 coal mine operators reminding 

them of their statutory requirement to insure 

and stay insured against their potential liability 

for black lung benefits. Of these, 659 were 

found to be insured, 100 were insured through a 

parent entity or not engaged in coal mining, and 

103 were uninsured companies that required 

assistance. The remaining 19 were returned 

unclaimed, delivered with no response, or failed 

delivery for another reason. Letters also were 

mailed to commercial insurers reminding them 

of the statutory requirements for writing black 

lung insurance and for annual reporting to 

DCMWC of the companies insured and policy 

numbers. These letters generated many questions 

from underwriters and resulted in improved 

compliance. During FY 2007, DCMWC received 

3,004 reports of new or renewed policies. 

Section 413(b) of the BLBA requires 

DCMWC to provide each individual miner who 

files a claim for benefits with the opportunity to 

undergo a complete pulmonary evaluation at 

no cost to the miner. The project to improve the 

quality of these medical evaluations and reports 

continued during FY 2007, with District Directors 

and national office staff making visits to physicians 

and clinics. During their 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, and several times during FY 2007 the list 

of approved diagnostic physicians was updated to 

ensure that highly-qualified doctors were available 

to perform medical evaluations.

In FY 2007 the program added to its 

compliance assistance role its long-standing 

commitment to ensuring that payments to 

beneficiaries requiring assistance are properly 

utilized for their use and benefit. DCMWC began 

to track district office actions in the appointment 

of representative payees and the monitoring of 

their expenditure of benefits. By the end of FY 

2007, over 98 percent of representative payee 

appointments and expenditure reports were 

evaluated and acted on within thirty days.
23

Black Lung Benefits Act

Litigation

Cou

During FY 2007, the courts of appeals issued 

37 decisions in cases arising under the BLBA.

Thirty-two new appeals were filed. The following 

summarizes the most significant appellate 

decisions:

Validity of the Department’s Evidence-Limiting 

Rules: 20 C.F.R. § 725.414. The Department 

adopted new regulations in 2000 limiting the 

amount of medical evidence that each party may 

submit: (1) in support of its affirmative case; (2) in 

rebuttal of evidence submitted by the opposing 

party; and (3) to rehabilitate evidence made 

the subject of rebuttal. In Elm Grove Coal Co. v. 

Director, OWCP, and Blake, 480 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 

2007), the Fourth Circuit rejected an employer’s 

challenge to the regulations’ validity. Deferring 

to the Department’s views, the Court held that 

the rules are “a reasonable and valid exercise of 

the Secretary’s authority to regulate evidentiary 

development in Black Lung Act proceedings, 

they are based on a permissible construction of 

the Act, and they are neither arbitrary, capricious 

[nor] manifestly contrary to the statute.” Id. at 

297 (internal quotations omitted). The Elm Grove 

Coal decision is consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision in National Mining Ass’n v. Department of 

Labor, 292 F.3d 849, 873-74 (D.C. Cir. 2002), which 

upheld the evidence-limiting regulations against a 

facial challenge. 

Considerations on Modification: 33 U.S.C. § 922, 

incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a) and 20 C.F.R. 

§ 725.310. Under the modification provision, 

any party may seek to modify an award of 

benefits within one year of the last payment of 

benefits based on a mistake in fact or a change in 

conditions. In Sharpe v. Director, OWCP,495 F.3d 

125 (4th Cir. 2007), the Fourth Circuit addressed 

whether an ALJ properly modified an award of 

benefits to a miner. The employer had paid the 

award for six years prior to the miner’s death, 

and only sought modification after the miner’s 

widow filed a claim for survivor’s benefits. The 

ALJ granted the employer’s modification request 

on the grounds that the award was mistaken.

Noting that the granting of a modification request 

is discretionary, the court held that the ALJ erred 

in focusing solely on whether the prior award on 

the miner’s claim was correct. Instead, the court 

held that the ALJ should also consider “any factors 

that are pertinent in the circumstances,” including 

the diligence of the party seeking modification, the 

motive of the party, and whether the modification 

request was futile. Since the ALJ had not 

considered these factors here, the court vacated the 

denial of benefits and remanded the case.

When Fact Findings Rendered in a Miner’s 

Claim are Binding in a Survivor’s Claim. To 

prevail on either a living miner’s claim or a 

survivor’s claim, the claimant must establish, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

miner suffers or suffered from pneumoconiosis 

as defined by the statute and regulations. In 

Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Company, 468 F.3d 

213 (4th Cir. 2006), the Fourth Circuit considered 

whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel 

a finding of pneumoconiosis in a miner’s-claim 

award binds the parties in a later survivor’s claim.

The ALJ had determined that the employer 

was not bound by the pneumoconiosis finding 

made in the miner’s claim in 1988 because the 

applicable law had changed between the time 

that finding was made and the survivor’s claim 

was adjudicated. In support of his change-in-law 

theory, the ALJ cited the Fourth Circuit’s decision 

Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203 

(4th Cir. 2000), which addressed how to weigh 

evidence of pneumoconiosis under the applicable 

regulation. The court rejected the ALJ’s view, 

holding that Compton did not change the legal 
24

definition of pneumoconiosis, the methods for 

proving the disease’s existence, or the burden of 

proof (i.e. by a preponderance of the evidence) 

the claimant must meet to establish the disease.

Finding the elements of collateral estoppel 

satisfied, and that application of the doctrine was 

not unfair to the employer in the circumstances of 

this case, the court held that the employer could 

not relitigate the existence of pneumoconiosis in 

the survivor’s claim.

Weighing Conflicting Medical Opinion 

Evidence. In Stalcup v. Peabody Coal Co., 477 F.3d 

482 (7th Cir. 2007), the Seventh Circuit emphasized 

a fact finder’s duty to carefully evaluate conflicting 

medical opinions. Here, the ALJ found that the 

miner did not have pneumoconiosis by crediting 

the employer’s more numerous medical opinions.

The court rejected the ALJ’s nose-counting 

approach, noting that “when an ALJ is faced with 

conflicting evidence from medical experts, he 

cannot avoid the scientific controversy by basing 

his decision on which side has more medical 

opinions in its favor.” Id. at 484. Because the ALJ 

had not explained why the negative medical 

opinions of the employer’s doctors were more 

persuasive than the positive opinions submitted 

by the claimant’s doctors, the court vacated the 

denial of benefits and remanded the case for 

further consideration.

Benef

During FY 2007, the BRB issued 635 black lung 

decisions, several of which significantly affect the 

Secretary’s administration of the benefits program. 

The following summarizes some of the more 

significant decisions of the Board, categorized by 

issue:

Evidentiary Limitations. The Secretary’s 

regulations impose limitations on the amount of 

medical evidence that each party may submit: 

(1) in support of its affirmative case; (2) in rebuttal 

of evidence submitted by the opposing party; 

and (3) to rehabilitate evidence made the subject 

of rebuttal. The BRB issued several significant 

decisions addressing the evidentiary limitations 

during FY 2007: 

In Rose v. Buffalo Mining Co., 23 Black Lung Rep. 

1-221 (2007), the BRB considered how the evidence 

limiting rules apply when the Act’s provision 

for re-opening claims, a procedure referred 

to as “modification,” has been invoked. The 

regulation implementing that provision describes 

additional limitations on affirmative, rebuttal 

and rehabilitative evidence that apply. Agreeing 

with the Director, the BRB held that evidence 

admissible under either limitations provision 

may be submitted on modification; the two sets 

of limitations provisions work together to allow 

each party to submit all of the evidence allowed by 

either regulation, even when that evidence is first 
25

Black Lung Benefits Act

submitted in connection with the modification 

proceeding. The BRB reasoned that this approach 

is consistent with the language of the regulations, 

the overall scheme of the limitations provisions, 

and the broad nature of modification.

Under the evidence limiting rules, each 

party is allowed to submit, among other pieces 

of evidence, one autopsy report and two medical 

reports in support of its affirmative case, and 

one physician’s review of the opposing party’s 

autopsy report as rebuttal evidence. Agreeing 

with the Director, the BRB held that a physician’s 

review of autopsy tissue slides constitutes an 

autopsy report, rather than a medical report, 

for purposes of the evidentiary limitations. The 

BRB also held that an autopsy rebuttal report 

is limited to a review of the opposing party’s 

affirmative report and autopsy tissue samples. If 

the physician addresses other medical evidence 

in the record, the resulting report counts against 

the submitting party as both a medical report 

and an autopsy rebuttal report. Finally, the BRB 

held that when a miner’s claim and a survivor’s 

claim are consolidated for hearing, a party may 

submit separate affirmative case and rebuttal case 

evidence in each claim. Keener v. Peerless Eagle Coal 

Company, 23 Black Lung Rep. 1-229 (2007)(en banc).

During FY 2007, the BRB also denied 

motions for reconsideration of two earlier 

decisions that addressed the evidence-limiting 

rules. In Webber v. Peabody Coal Company, 24 

Black Lung Rep. 1-1 (2007), the BRB reaffirmed 

its holding in Webber v. Peabody Coal Company, 23 

Black Lung Rep. 1-123 (2006), that the evidentiary 

limitations apply to medical evidence submitted 

under a catch-all provision that allows admission 

of “other medical evidence” not specifically 

addressed in the program regulations, such as 

CT-scans; thus, a party may submit only one 

interpretation or set of results from each such 

test as part of its affirmative case. The BRB also 

reaffirmed its holding that readings of digital 

chest x-rays must be considered under the “other 

medical evidence” provision rather than under 

the provision governing consideration of standard 

x-rays. In Harris v. Old Ben Coal Company, 24 

Black Lung Rep. 1-13 (2007), the BRB reaffirmed 

its holding in Harris v. Old Ben Coal Company, 23 

Black Lung Rep. 1-98 (2006), that, when a party 

has submitted a medical report by a physician 

who relies on evidence exceeding the limitations, 

an ALJ has discretion to take appropriate action, 

such as considering only portions of the report or 

excluding the report from the record entirely. 
26

Establishing the Existence of 

Pneumoconiosis. A black lung 

program regulation provides 

specific criteria under which 

a claimant may establish 

the existence of “clinical” 

pneumoconiosis by chest x-ray 

evidence. A separate regulation 

sets forth criteria for establishing 

that the disease arose out of coal 

mine employment. Adopting 

the Director’s position, the BRB 

held that an x-ray diagnosis of 

pneumoconiosis unrelated to 

coal dust exposure supports 

a finding of pneumoconiosis 

under the former provision and 

that the physician’s assessment 

regarding the source of the 

pneumoconiosis must be 

considered under the regulation 

addressing causation. The 

BRB held that this outcome is 

fully consistent with the Fourth 

Circuit’s decision in Island Creek 

Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203 

(4th Cir. 2000), which requires 

that the ALJ weigh all of the relevant evidence to 

determine whether clinical pneumoconiosis exists. 

Kiser v. L & J Equipment Company, 23 Black Lung 

Rep. 1-246 (2006).
27

Black Lung Benefits Act 

Part C 1 Part B 2

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2006 FY 2007

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 191 185 16 17

OWCP Administrative Expenditures 3 $ 32.7 M $ 33.2 M $ 5.2 M $ 5.4 M

Total Compensation and Benefit Payments 4 $307.1 M $291.3 M $319.9 MR $289.5 M

Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year 

 Monthly 33,954 31,305 41,625 36,888

 Medical Benefits Only 2,891 2,324 N/A N/A

Responsible Coal Mine Operator Beneficiaries 

in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 5,076 4,830 N/A N/A

 Medical Benefits Only 951 777 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 figures exclude DOL and Department of Treasury support costs of $25.3 million in FY 2006 and $26.3 million in FY 2007, 

respectively. Also excludes interest on the Trust Fund debt.

4 Part C figures exclude 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.

R Revised.

Black Lung Benefits Act

29

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 
30

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

particular circumstances, by an industry-financed Special Fund.

In addition, LHWCA covers certain other employees through the following 

extensions to the Act:

The Defense Base Act (DBA) of August 16, 1941, extends the benefits of the 

LHWCA to employees working outside the continental United States under certain 

circumstances set out in jurisdictional provisions. Primarily it covers all private 

employment on: U.S. military bases overseas, land used for military purposes on U.S. 

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

The Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities Act of June 19, 1952, covers civilian 

employees in post exchanges, service clubs, etc. of the Armed Forces.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of August 7, 1953, extended Longshore 

benefits to employees of firms working on the outer continental shelf of the 

United States, such as off-shore drilling enterprises engaged in exploration for and 

development of natural resources.

The District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act (DCCA), passed by Congress 

on May 17, 1928, extended the coverage provided by the Longshore Act to private 

employment in the District of Columbia. Since the District of Columbia passed its 

own workers’ compensation act effective July 26, 1982, OWCP handles claims only for 

injuries prior to that date.

The original law, entitled the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ 

Compensation Act, provided coverage to certain maritime employees injured while 

working over navigable waters. These workers had been held excluded from state 

workers’ compensation coverage by the Supreme Court (Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 

244 U.S. 205 (1917)).
31

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Operations

Disability compensation and medical benefits 

paid by insurers and self-insurers under LHWCA 

and its extensions totaled $736.4 million in 

Calendar Year (CY) 2006, a 13.2 percent increase 

compared to CY 2005.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, total DOL 

expenditures for program operations and the 

administration of LHWCA and its extensions 

were $26.7 million, of which $10.7 million were 

the direct costs of OWCP. The remaining $16.0 

million represents the cost of legal, audit, and 

investigative support provided by the Office of 

AdministrativeLaw Judges (OALJ), the Benefits 

Review Board (BRB), the Office of the Solicitor, 

and the Office of the Inspector General. 

At year’s end, the Division of Longshore 

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation (DLHWC) 

employed 95 people in the national office and 11 

district offices.

During FY 2007, approximately 540 selfinsured employers and insurance carriers reported 

33,395 lost-time injuries under the LHWCA. At 

year’s end, 14,774 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 2007. Injuries 

occurring under DBA are reported to DLHWC 

District Offices determined by the geographic 

location of the injury occurrence. For covered 

employees in the Middle East, injuries are reported 

to the New York DLHWC District Office, where 

claim files are maintained, provisions of the DBA 

are enforced, and dispute resolution services 

offered. During the year, a total of 15,141 claims 

were filed 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.

 
32

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 $131.9 

million in benefits in FY 2007, of which $117.5 

million was for second injury (section 8(f)) claims. 

FY 2007 expenditures from the DCCA Special 

Fund totaled $10.1 million, of which $9.3 million 

was for second injury cases.

Government Performance 

Results Act

In FY 2007, DLHWC set the following target for 

the indicator under the DOL strategic goal to 

“minimize the human, social, and financial impact 

of work-related injuries for workers and their 

families”: 

To reduce by two percent versus the FY 2005 

baseline the average time required to resolve 

disputed issues in LHWCA program contested 

cases, from an average of 253 days in FY 2005 to 

248 days in FY 2007.

This indicator is intended to measure 

OWCP’s success in resolving claim disputes 

between injured workers and their employers 

and insurers. Dispute resolution is one of the 

core missions of the Longshore program. While 

not a judge or a hearing officer, a Longshore 

claims examiner contributes to the resolution 

of disputed issues by acting as a mediator in 

informal proceedings designed to help parties to 

a claim reach amicable agreement and thereby 

avoid the time and expense required by formal 

litigation. In FY 2007, the district offices conducted 

2,462informal 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.

To ensure that the goals of this indicator 

remain ambitious, OWCP expanded the scope 

of the Longshore program’s dispute resolution 

measurement in FY 2006 to include two additional 

dispute types, those of Last Responsible Employer 

and Attorney Fees. New targets were developed 

and adopted in FY 2005 for implementation from 

FY 2006 through FY 2008. The goal is to reduce by 

one percent each year for three years the average 

time required to resolve disputes. In FY 2007, 
33

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

disputed issues covered by this measure were 

resolved in an average of 230 days, 18 days below 

the target of 248 days. The program’s success 

was in large part due to the efforts of the district 

office staff to increase the proportion of disputes 

resolved at the OWCP level without the need for 

formal hearing.

OWCP continues to provide its claims 

staff with additional training to improve 

mediation skills and case management strategies 

to shorten the time required to resolve disputes.

Performance Assessment

In response to the recommendations from the 

2005 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), the 

Longshore program continues to implement and 

monitor a number of actions. An independent 

study was completed in FY 2006 by a private 

consulting firm. The study results included 

recommendations for extensive upgrades to 

the automated claims management system to 

improve benefit tracking and allow benchmarking 

against workers’ compensation programs 

in various states. The program continues to 

evaluate means to update its automated systems. 

A second study was completed at the end of 

FY 2007 with the same contractor to evaluate 

the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the 

program. Longshore has acted upon SRA’s 

recommendation to further expand the number 

of offices that handle Middle East DBA cases by 

redistributing DBA cases to all district offices based 

on the claimant’s current address. The remaining 

recommendations are under review and 

evaluation by the program for implementation.

Based on the PART evaluation and in 

reaction to the submission of legislative reform 

proposals by industry, the program began an 

evaluation of the statute with the intention of 

submitting any requested responses or technical 

assistance. Although industry-submitted 

legislation was not acted upon in FY 2007, future 

industry proposals are anticipated.

DLHWC program performance, as 

measured by GPRA outcome metrics, quarterly 

reviews of district office performance, and periodic 

accountability reviews, continue to be excellent.
34

Claims Management and 

Compliance Assistance 

Activities

The number of DBA injury and death claims 

from civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan 

continued to grow in FY 2007, with claims totaling 

12,540, of which 463 involved the death of a 

worker. This is an increase of over 200 percent 

compared to FY 2006. Between FY 2003 and 

FY 2007, a total of 27,267 DBA claims were filed, 

including 1,267 death claims, of which 21,275 

claims (1,159 deaths) originated in Iraq and 

Afghanistan.

The Longshore program continued its 

efforts to address issues and questions about the 

ongoing increases in DBA claims arising from Iraq 

and Afghanistan. The staff has worked diligently 

to foresee and address such issues as the effective 

handling of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder claims 

and the challenges of managing the claims of 

Iraqi nationals in a nation with complex cultural 

differences, communications challenges, banking 

and infrastructure difficulties, and lack of available 

medical care. The major participants, including 

insurance companies and contracting agencies, 

were invited to meetings throughout the year to 

discuss and resolve these issues in advance of their 

becoming major problems.

In response to the burgeoning number 

of DBA claims, DLHWC began planning the 

unusual step of distributing the claims from Iraq 

and Afghanistan from the New York City District 

Office, which normally handles all claims from 

that region, to the district office closest to the 

claimant’s residence. Without this management 

step, the New York office would quickly have 

become overwhelmed by the workload, and 

customer service would have deteriorated.

Additionally, the quickly escalating 

number of Freedom of Information Act requests, 

Congressional inquiries, requests for data and 

analysis, media questions, and submissions 

from contracting agencies, contractors, insurers, 

attorneys, and claimants reached historic levels, 

and required prioritizing.

The Longshore program’s efforts to 

enhance its Compliance Assistance to the public 

continued in FY 2007, with more information 

added to its website, continued local surveys 

of industry to identify pockets of coverage 

compliance deficiencies, and public speaking 

at many conferences and seminars around the 

country.

DLHWC initiated a major efficiency and 

effectiveness study by SRA Corporation, following 

up on recommendations from the 2005 PART 

evaluation. This comprehensive program review 
35

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

looked at the procedures in place in the district 

offices and provided both flow charts detailing 

these processes and recommendations for 

improvements. The Longshore program began 

its review of the study results and is evaluating 

the potential for incorporating as many of the 

recommendations as realistically possible, given 

the current caseload increases in DBA claims.

Rehabilitation Reforms

The process of refining and improving the new 

performance measure for the rehabilitation 

specialists in the district offices continued during 

FY 2007. The new measure is the percentage 

increase in the number of rehabilitation 

participants who successfully complete approved 

rehabilitation plans and return to suitable work 

within 12 months of the completion of the plan. 

The measure, which incorporates recognition 

for recruiting claimants to participate in the 

rehabilitation process thereby helping to guide 

their successful completion of implemented 

rehabilitation plans, while focusing on the desired 

return-to-work outcome, again met its target goal 

during the year. DLHWC continues to monitor 

this measure closely. 

DLHWC implemented a pilot project in 

the Jacksonville, Florida District Office to test a 

new approach to vocational rehabilitation. The 

goal in this test is to change the mix of services 

provided to claimants to focus on job placement, 

along with a fundamental fee change from 

hourly billing to a fee-for-service schedule with 

performance incentives. This test project will 

continue for at least two years, as the duration of 

most rehabilitation plans (primarily retraining or 

on-the-job training), along with the needed time to 

seek, obtain, and maintain a new job placement to 

successful outcomes, is lengthy.
36

Litigation

During FY 2007, the courts of appeals published 

eleven decisions, and the Benefits Review 

Board (BRB) two significant decisions, that 

discussed issues arising under the LHWCA or its 

extensions. Important points from these cases are 

summarized below. 

Cou

Credit Against Awards - 33 U.S.C. § 903(e). The 

Second Circuit held that, where a prior settlement 

under a state workers’ compensation law 

included payment for both the worker’s death 

and disability, only the portion paid for his death 

could be credited against the widow’s award of 

LHWCA death benefits. Barscz v. Director, OWCP, 

486 F.3d 744 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court found that 

the relevant language of the LHWCA provided a 

credit for amounts paid under another workers’ 

compensation law only if those amounts were 

paid for the same “injury, disability or death” 

currently being claimed under the LHWCA. 

Because the widow was claiming death benefits 

under the LHWCA, only the portion of the 

state settlement paid for death was creditable, 

and amounts paid for disability were not. The 

Court further held that the burden of proving 

what portion of the state settlement was paid 

as compensation for the worker’s death rested 

with the employer, because the Administrative 

Procedure Act provides that “the proponent of a 

rule or order has the burden of proof.” 5 U.S.C. § 

556(d). As the employer was the party seeking to 

claim a credit, and thus the proponent of the order, 

it bore the burden of proving that it was entitled to 

a credit. 

Credit Against Awards - 33 U.S.C. § 933(b). 

The First Circuit held thatanemployer who 

paid benefits to an employee under the Defense 

Base Act (DBA) had no statutory right under 

the LHWCA to seek damages based on the 

employee’s potential malpractice claim against 

attorneys who represented him in a Federal Tort 

Claims Act (FTCA) action that arose from the 

same injury. ITT Federal Services Corp. v. Anduze 

Montano, 474 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2007). The employee 

was injured at a United States naval installation 

in Puerto Rico when a Navy pilot dropped two 

bombs near the control tower where he was 

working. He filed a claim for benefits under the 

DBA, and settled that claim with the employer 

and its insurance carrier for approximately 

$305,000. Prior to that settlement, the worker’s 

attorneys also filed an FTCA suit on his behalf, 

naming the United States Navy and his employer 

as defendants. The district court dismissed the 

suit because the FTCA precludes suits against 

military departments, and provides that the 

United States is the only proper defendant. The 

worker did not try to revive the suit and the statute 

of limitations expired. Having paid the worker 

$305,000, the employer and its carrier filed suit 

against the worker’s attorneys, alleging a statutory 

right under the LHWCA to seek damages against 

those attorneys for legal malpractice in pursuing 

the FTCA claim. The district court dismissed the 

suit, and the circuit court affirmed. The Court held 

that section 33(b) of the Act provides the employer 

a limited assignment of rights only where a 

third party is liable for an injury sustained in the 

course of employment, for which compensation 

is payable under the LHWCA. As the harm 

allegedly caused by the worker’s attorneys – 

malpractice – was not sustained in the course of 

employment, and was not compensable under the 

Act, section 33 did not confer a right of subrogation 

in the employer’s favor. 

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(b). The Fourth 

Circuit affirmed an award of attorney’s fees under 

section 28(b) of the Act, finding that all of the 

section’s requirements had been met although the 
37

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

district director did not hold an in person informal 

conference. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry 

Dock Co. v. Director, OWCP (Hassel), 477 F.3d 123 

(4th Cir. 2007). Immediately after the claimant’s 

injury, the employer began voluntarily paying 

compensation for temporary total disability. 

Thereafter, a controversy developed over the 

additional compensation to which the claimant 

was entitled for permanent partial disability. 

The employer did not dispute the disability 

rating dictating the amount of compensation 

due, but included in its proposed stipulations 

a statement that the parties were aware of no 

other outstanding compensation issues. When 

the claimant declined to accept that stipulation, 

the employer filed a notice of controversion 

challenging the claimant’s permanent disability 

rating. The parties exchanged letters with each 

other and the district director, who responded 

by taking the position that the employer should 

begin payments at the claimant’s assigned 

disability rating, and that the claimant was not 

required to sign the stipulations as a condition 

of receiving compensation. The Court held that 

the initial letters were the functional equivalent 

of an informal conference, and treated the district 

director’s letter as a written recommendation. It 

further held that the employer did not accept 

that recommendation because it never changed 

its initial offer, insisting upon the challenged 

stipulation. Thus, although the employer had 

made a conditional offer of payment, after a 

controversy arose, the offer did not constitute a 

valid tender of additional compensation. Finally, 

the Court held that the claimant’s use of an 

attorney resulted in a greater award because, 

although he obtained the same compensation 

he sought at the outset of the controversy, that 

compensation came without the inclusion of the 

challenged stipulation. 

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(b). The Fourth 

Circuit also affirmed an employer’s attorney fee 

liability where, after the employer initially made 

voluntary payments, a controversy arose over 

medical causation. Newport News Shipbuilding and 

Dry Dock Co. v. Director, OWCP (Moody), 474 F.3d 

109 (4th Cir. 2006). In 1999, the claimant injured his 

left knee at work, was treated at the shipyard clinic 

and placed on light duty, but did not file a claim for 

compensation. In 2001, he injured his right knee, 

underwent surgery and collected compensation 

for temporary total disability. In 2002, he reported 

pain in his left knee during a visit with his doctor. 

His doctor found that the left knee injury was 

due to the extra pressure placed on his left knee 

after the right knee injury, and required surgery. 

The employer contested the claimant’s right to 

compensation for the left knee injury, arguing that 

it was the result of the 1999 injury, and thus barred 

by the one-year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

913(a). The employer rejected a claims examiner’s 

recommendation finding that the left knee 

problem resulted from the 2001 right knee injury, 

and the case was referred to an administrative 

law judge (ALJ) for hearing. The ALJ rejected the 

employer’s argument that the causation issue 

was not ripe for adjudication because the claimant 

had not yet suffered a disability resulting in lost 

time from work. He further found that the left 

knee injury resulted from the 2001 right knee 

injury, and awarded fees to the claimant’s attorney 

under 33 U.S.C. § 928(a). On appeal, the Court 

affirmed the ALJ’s rejection of the employer’s 

ripeness argument, finding that all of the evidence 

necessary to determine causation of the left knee 

injury was in the record, and that delaying an 

agency decision would result in hardship to the 

claimant. Finally, the Court held that, although 

the ALJ’s award of attorney’s fees was not proper 

under section 28(a), fees were properly shifted to 

the employer under section 28(b). 
38

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(b). A panel of the 

Sixth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en 

banc of its 2006 decision, finding that in order to 

shift attorney fee liability to the employer under 

section 28(b), the district director must: (1) hold 

an informal conference; and (2) issue a written 

recommendation calling for the payment of 

compensation. Pittsburgh & Conneaut Dock Co. v. 

Director, OWCP (Bordeaux), 473 F.3d 253 (6th Cir. 

2007). Where the district director held an informal 

conference but did not make a substantive 

recommendation, section 28(b) could not apply to 

shift attorney fee liability to the employer. 

Coverage: Exclusion for Retail Outlet 

Employees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the 

BRB’s determination that the assistant manager 

of a photography concession service on a historic 

naval ship fell within the “retail outlet” exclusion 

from coverage, 33 U.S.C § 902(3)(B), but remanded 

for determination of whether she was covered 

by state workers’ compensation law. Peru v. 

Sharpshooter Spectrum Ventures, LLC, 493 F.3d 1058 

(9th Cir. 2007). The claimant was injured when 

she hit her head while ascending a ladder inside 

the USS Missouri. The BRB found that she was 

excluded from coverage under section 2(3)(B) 

because she was “employed by a . . . retail outlet.” 

The Court affirmed that determination, but noted 

that individuals are excluded from coverage 

by sections 2(3)(A) through (F) only if they 

“are subject to coverage under a State workers’ 

compensation law.” As the claimant’s coverage 

under Hawaii’s state workers’ compensation 

law had not been definitively determined, the 

Court remanded, noting that if she were found 

not covered by state law, she would be eligible for 

compensation under the LHWCA regardless of 

the statutory exclusion. 

33 U.S.C. § 908(f). The Second Circuit confirmed 

the established principle that an employer is 

eligible for section 8(f) relief from liability where 

an employee’s pre-existing disability and second 

injury arise from the same course of employment 

with the same employer. Electric Boat Corporation 

v. DeMartino, 495 F.3d 14 (2dCir. 2007). The Court 

nonetheless affirmed the administrative law 

judge’s conclusion that the employer was not 

entitled to section 8(f) relief because it had failed to 

persuade the ALJ that the employee was exposed 

to additional asbestos after a 1970 diagnosis of an 

asbestos-related medical condition. The employer 

therefore had not established the existence of a 

second injury. 

33 U.S.C. § 905(b) and the Jones Act. The

employee, a crane operator on a barge, brought 

a personal injury action against his employer 

under both the Jones Act and section 5(b) of the 

LHWCA. The district court granted summary 

judgment to the employer/owner on both claims. 

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, 

finding that the claimant had established the 

existence of material issues of fact. Scheuring v. 

Traylor Brothers, Inc., 476 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2007). 

To board the barge, the crew had to walk down 

a twenty-foot ramp from the water’s edge to an 

offshore float, and then take a skiff to the barge. 

The ramp could not be attached to the float, so it 

regularly fell into the water. The claimant injured 

his back while trying to lift the end of the ramp 

out of the water. The circuit court reversed the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment on 

the Jones Act claim because it found there were 

material issues of fact concerning whether he was 

a land- or sea-based worker, and whether he had 

a substantial connection to the vessel. It reversed 

summary judgment on the section 5(b) count, 
39

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

finding that there were genuine issues of material 

fact concerning whether: (1) any negligence on the 

part of the barge owner was as vessel owner or 

employer; (2) the ramp was more like a gangway, 

and thus part of the vessel, or more like a dock or 

pier; and (3) the barge owner fulfilled its duty to 

present the vessel in a safe condition. 

33 U.S.C. §§ 919(e) and 921(a). Mere Receipt of 

an ALJ’s Order by the District Director Without 

Formal Action Does Not Amount to Filing of 

the Order. The Fifth Circuit reversed a decision 

of the BRB dismissing a claimant’s appeal as 

untimely. Grant v. Director, OWCP, 502 F.3d 361 

(5th Cir. 2007). An ALJ dismissed a claim for 

compensation on December 13, 2005, and sent 

the order to the parties by regular mail and to 

the district director by express mail. The district 

director received the order the next day, but did 

not formally date and file the order, and did not 

serve it on the parties. On January 18, 2006, the 

claimant mailed a notice of appeal to the Board, 

and sent a letter to the district director inquiring 

whether his office had served the ALJ’s order. 

The district director responded that the order 

had been served by the Office of Administrative 

Law Judges, and had thus not been filed in his 

office. The BRB dismissed the appeal as untimely, 

finding that the ALJ’s order had been filed in 

the office of the district director on December 14, 

2005, when the district director had received it. 

The Court reversed, holding that mere receipt 

of an order by the director is not equivalent to 

the filing of that order. The Court noted that 20 

C.F.R. § 702.349 requires the district director to 

formally date and file the order after it is received, 

and concluded that filing requires a “formal 

act” by the district director. Having found that 

no such formal act occurred, the Court found it 

unnecessary to decide whether filing also requires 

proper service of the order on the parties. 

33 U.S.C. §921(c). When An Employer May 

Stop Paying Compensation Under an Award 

that is Vacated by the Court. The Fifth Circuit 

held that an employer was required to continue 

paying compensation under an award vacated 

by the Court until the date the Court issued its 

mandate, but not until the Supreme Court denied 

the claimant’s petition for certiorari. Charpentier v. 

Ortco Contractors, 480 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2007). The 

Court relied on the language of section 21(c) – 

which refers to the point at which there is a “final 

decision” by the court of appeals – and concluded 

that its decision became final when it issued its 

mandate. 

33 U.S.C. § 922. Modification. The Fourth 

Circuit held that a letter sent by employee’s 

counsel to the district director was a valid request 

for modification because it established a clear 

intention to seek further compensation even 

though the letter also stated that no informal 

conference was requested. Kea v. Newport News 

Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 488 F.3d 606 (4th 

Cir. 2007). The Court held that the standard 

for requesting modification is “most lenient,” 

requiring that there need only be some basis for a 

reasonable person to conclude that a modification 

request has been made, and expressing an actual 

intention to seek compensation for a particular 

loss. It held that the claimant’s letter met those 

requirements because it alleged a permanent loss 

of wages, as opposed to the temporary loss for 

which claimant was being compensated, and 

asked that the letter be treated as “a request for 

additional compensation in modification of the 

previous award.” 
40

Benefi

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(a). The BRB held 

that, when an employer does not pay benefits 

to a claimant within thirty days of receiving a 

claim from the district director, its liability for 

all attorney’s fees arising from that claim is to 

be determined under section 28(a). W.G. v. 

Marine Terminals Corp., 41 BRBS 13 (2007). After 

initially failing to pay compensation within 

thirty days of receiving the claim, the employer 

subsequently paid the claimant temporary total 

disability benefits, medical benefits, and attorney’s 

fees. When the claimant reached maximum 

medical improvement, the parties sought to 

resolve whether the claimant was entitled to 

permanent benefits. The district director issued 

a recommendation that the employer pay 

compensation for permanent partial disability 

and the employer did so. Claimant’s counsel 

filed a petition for fees incurred in securing 

the compensation for permanent disability, 

which the district director denied. The district 

director found that, pursuant to section 28(b), the 

employer was not liable for the subsequent fees 

because it had timely paid the compensation for 

permanent disability after the district director’s 

recommendation. The BRB reversed, finding 

fees were due under section 28(a) because the 

permanent compensation was paid on the same 

claim as the temporary compensation, and the 

employer had failed to pay that claim within thirty 

days. 

Attorney Fees - 33 U.S.C. § 928(a), (b). The BRB 

found that, where an employer voluntarily pays 

compensation within thirty days of receiving 

a claim, it cannot be held liable for fees under 

section 28(a), even if it pays less compensation 

than the claimant seeks. A two-member majority 

also found that an employer cannot be held 

liable for fees under section 28(b), even where the 

claimant subsequently obtains a greater award, 

if the employer has not refused to accept the 

district director’s recommendation regarding 

compensation after an informal conference. 

Andrepont v. Murphy Exploration and Production Co., 

41 BRBS 1 (J. Hall dissenting), recon. denied 41 BRBS 

73 (2007). 
41

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ 

Compensation Act

 FY 2006 FY 

Number of Employees 

(FTE Staffing Used) 92 95

Administrative Expenditures 1 $ 12.7 M $ 12.8 M

Lost-Time Injuries Reported 23,537 33,395

Total Compensation Paid 2 $798.4 M $882.3 M

 Wage-Loss and Survivor Benefits $568.9 M $619.5 M

 Medical Benefits $229.5 M $262.8 M

Sources of Compensation Paid

 Insurance Companies 2 $325.0 M $367.6 M

 Self-Insured Employers 2 $325.7 M $368.7 M

 LHWCA Special Fund $133.3 M $131.9 M

 DCCA Special Fund $ 10.2 M $ 10.1 M

 DOL Appropriation $ 2.4 M $ 2.4 M

1 Direct administrative costs to OWCP only; excludes DOL support costs of $15

million in FY 2006 and $16.0 million in FY 2007, respectivel

2 Figures are for CY 2005 and CY 2006, respectively. Note  Total compensatio

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 F

assessment billing purposes as required by section 44 of LHWCA, compensati

and medical benefit payments made by insurance carriers and self-insured 

employers under the Acts are reported to DOL for the previous calendar ye

43

Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act

Introduction

Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act (EEOICPA or Act) in October 2000; Part B became effective on July 

31, 2001. Part B 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 
44

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 (effective October 28, 2004) replaced the former Part D of the EEOICPA. 

Part E of the Act compensates DOE contractor/subcontractor employees, eligible 

survivors of such employees, and uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters as 

defined by RECA Section 5 for illnesses that are linked to toxic exposures in the DOE or 

mining work environment. 

From the program’s inception to the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, the Division 

of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) provided 

more than 24,800 employees or their families with compensation totaling more than 

$2.9 billion under both Parts B and E of the Act and paid more than $170 million 

for medical expenses associated with the treatment of accepted medical conditions. 

Part B compensation has totaled more than $2.1 billion (since 2001) while Part E 

compensation has exceeded $833 million (since 2005). 

In FY 2007 alone, more than 5,700 employees or their families received Part 

B compensation of $464.4 million. In addition, more than 3,200 employees or their 

families received Part E compensation of $361.7 million. A total of $55.7 million was 

paid in covered medical benefits in FY 2007 under both Parts B and E of the Act.
45

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Administration

Executive Order 13179 designated four 

federal agencies to administer the Act: DOL, 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), DOE, and DOJ. DOL is the 

lead agency with primary responsibility for 

administering the Act, including adjudication 

of claims for compensation and payment of 

benefits for conditions covered by Parts B and 

E. The EEOICPA has been and continues to 

be an intergovernmental activity, involving the 

coordinated efforts of the HHS, DOE, DOJ, as 

well as DOL. DEEOIC is proud of its contribution 

to the overall progress that has been made in 

implementing and administering both parts of the 

Act.

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 regulations 

and procedures for designation of new Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) classes, and carries out the 

actual dose reconstruction for cases referred by 

DOL. HHS also provides the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health with administrative 

services and other necessary support. The Board 

advises HHS on the scientific validity and quality 

of dose reconstruction efforts, and receives 

and provides recommendations on petitions 

submitted by classes of employees for inclusion as 

members of the SEC.

Under the Act, 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 an SEC 

facility. The Act designated 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, 2007, HHS had designated 11 

additional facilities, for certain workers and 

specified timeframes, as part of the SEC. These 

include: the S-50 Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion 

Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Oak Ridge 

Institute of Nuclear Studies (ORINS) Cancer 

Research Hospital, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 

covered employees exposed to radioactive 

lanthanum (RaLa) at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico; 

Allied Chemical Corporation Plant, Metropolis, 

Illinois; Harshaw Chemical Company’s HarvardDenison Plant, Cleveland, Ohio; General 

Atomics, La Jolla, California; Monsanto Chemical 

Company, Dayton, Ohio; Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, New Mexico; 

W.R. Grace, Erwin, Tennessee; Dow Chemical 

Company, Madison, Illinois; and the Rocky 

Flats Plant, Golden, Colorado. DOL has no 

role in determining which classes of employees 

are added to the SEC. When a new SEC class 

is identified, DOL reviews all affected cases to 

determine if the employee in question meets 

the new criteria. Any previously denied claim 

with employment meeting the new definition is 

reopened for additional development and a new 

recommended decision.

In addition to the added SEC classes, 

NIOSH also at times issues modifications to the 

underlying scientific rationale for performing a 

dose reconstruction based on further research 

into the etiology of specific cancers, and issues 

changes in instructions for completing dose 

reconstructions for particular groups of employees 

and facilities. These modifications are issued in 

the form of a Program Evaluation Report (PER) 
46

and Program Evaluation Plan (PEP). Whenever 

a PER or PEP is issued, DOL works with NIOSH 

to identify all cases affected by the changes, and 

where necessary reopens claims for new dose 

reconstructions to be performed. This process 

has led to the review of several thousand of these 

cases, with DOL returning over 2,000 cases to 

NIOSH for rework.

DOE makes Atomic Weapons Employer 

designations and provides DOL and HHS with 

relevant information on worker exposures, 

including access to restricted data and verification 

of covered employment.

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.

DEEOIC continued to receive a substantial 

number of new claims in FY 2007, creating a total 

of 6,113 new case files (8,709 claims) for living 

or deceased employees under Part B and 8,138 

new cases (11,090 claims) under Part E. Each case 

represents an employee whose illness is the basis 

for a claim. One case may have multiple survivor 

claims. 

DEEOIC’s Policy Branch, with the 

assistance of DOL’s Health Physicists, Industrial 

Hygienists, and Toxicologists, received and 

reviewed approximately 100 technical objections, 

150 exposure referrals, and 1,000 rework requests 

on case files. In addition, the Policy Branch 

processed a total of 2,235 referrals to District 

Medical Consultants, and worked with the 

Health Physicists to develop and present technical 

training on NIOSH dose reconstructions to 18 

claims examiners representing all four district 

offices.

The DEEOIC program’s Final 

Adjudication Branch (FAB) maintains its central 

office in Washington, D.C., with offices collocated 

with each district office. The FAB provided 

reviews of each recommended decision made 

by the district offices to ensure that the Act’s 

requirements, program policy, and procedures 

were followed. FAB also considered challenges 

brought forth by claimants through reviews 

of the written record or oral hearings. During 

FY 2007, FAB conducted 1,076 oral hearings, 

issuing final decisions regarding the claims 

and specific claimant challenges. In addition, 

claimants challenge FAB’s final decisions through 

reconsideration and reopening processes. Once 

claimants exhaust their administrative remedies 

under the Act, they may pursue judicial review at 

the district court level.

Benefits under the Act

While Parts B and E of the EEOICPA are separate 

programs with unique criteria for establishing 

positive claims, DEEOIC adjudicates all claims for 

benefits under Parts B and E as a unified claim, 

for greater efficiency. 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. Workers 

or their survivors may qualify for both Part B and 

Part E benefits. 

Part B. To qualify for benefits under Part B of the 

Act, 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 

Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) or beryllium 

vendor. The worker must have developed cancer, 

chronic beryllium disease, beryllium sensitivity, 

or chronic silicosis (for individuals who worked 

in Nevada and Alaskan nuclear test tunnels) due 
47

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

to exposures at the covered work site. 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 his 

or her 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 individuals (or their eligible 

survivors) who received an award from DOJ 

under Section 5 of the RECA, as well as related 

medical expenses.

There are several different types of 

claims under Part B of the Act. For all claims, 

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.

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. 

DOL’s district office then issues a recommended 

decision on eligibility for EEOICPA benefits. In FY 

2007, the district offices referred 5,412 Part B cases 

to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. 

Part E. 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 receive Part E benefits. Benefits 

are provided for any illness once it is determined 

that the illness was “at least as likely as not” that 

exposure to a toxic substance was a significant 

factor in causing, contributing to, or aggravating 

the illness or death of an employee. Additionally, 

the Act provides that any determination made 

under Part B to award benefits (including RECA 

Section 5 claims), as well as any positive finding by 

a physician panel under Part D that was accepted 

by DOE, is an automatic acceptance under Part E 

for causation of the illness. The maximum benefit 

under Part E is $250,000 for all claims relating to 

any individual employee.

Unlike Part B, which compensates 

employees with a uniform lump-sum payment 

of $150,000 for certain occupational illnesses, 

regardless of how severe or debilitating that 

illness is, Part E compensates covered employees 

for the varying percentage of impairment of the 

whole person that is related to a covered illness. 

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 or progressive stage. The Act specifically 

requires that impairment be determined 

in accordance with the American Medical 
48

Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent 

Impairment (AMA’s Guides). Eligible employees 

receive $2,500 for each percentage point of 

impairment found to be attributable to a covered 

illness under Part E.

Under Part E, covered employees may 

also be eligible to receive compensation for wage 

loss. Wage loss is based on each qualifying year 

(prior to normal Social Security Administration 

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 suffering wage loss (not including periods of 

unemployment). The Act provides that covered, 

eligible employees may receive $15,000 for any 

year in which they made less than 50 percent of 

their pre-disability average annual 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 average annual wage. 

Medical benefits for the covered condition are also 

payable, in addition to compensation, and are not 

limited by the $250,000 cap.

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 caused, 

contributed to, or aggravated the 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 average annual 

wage. If an employee had twenty or more such 

years, the additional amount paid to an eligible 

survivor may increase to $50,000.

Recommended Decisions and Final Decisions. 

The DEEOIC district offices issue recommended 

decisions (recommending either acceptance 

or denial of claims) to claimants. Claimants 

may agree with the recommended decision, or 

may object and request either a review of the 

written record or an oral hearing. FAB reviews 

the recommended decision and any evidence/

testimony submitted by the claimant and issues 

a final decision, either awarding or denying 

benefits. FAB may also remand a decision to the 

district office, if further development of the case is 

necessary. Claimants can appeal a final decision to 

the U.S. District Courts. 

In FY 2007, DEEOIC district offices issued 

13,326 claim-level recommended decisions of 

covered applications under Part B, and 15,928 

claim-level recommended decisions of covered 

applications under Part E. The FAB issued 12,079 

claim-level final decisions of covered applications 

under Part B, and 17,427 claim-level final decisions 

of covered applications under Part E. Under Part 

B, 6,374 covered claims (52.8 percent) received 

approval, while 5,705 (47.2 percent) were denied. 

Under Part E, 7,057 covered claims (40.5 percent) 

received approval, while 10,370 (59.5 percent) were 

denied.
49

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Funding

In FY 2007, DOL spent $53.1 million under Part 

B and $62.5 million under Part E to administer 

EEOICPA. These funds supported 296 full-time 

equivalent (FTE) staff for Part B and 211 FTE for 

Part E.

DOL funding covered 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 

Center contract facilities. A private contractor 

processed medical bills to reduce overhead and 

to increase program efficiency. Under Part B 

in FY 2007, additional funding in the amount 

of $54.8 million was passed through DOL to 

support activities at NIOSH. The NIOSH portion 

included $4.5 million in funds for the radiation 

dose reconstruction process and support of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

Under Part E, $0.7 million in additional funds 

were used to support the appointment of an 

Ombudsman position.

Government Performance 

Results Act

DOL is committed to measuring its outcomes 

and maintaining accountability for achieving 

the fundamental goals of the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

(EEOICP). High performance standards, focusing 

on moving EEOICP claims rapidly through the 

initial and secondary adjudication stages, were 

established. 

DEEOIC’s three indicators achieved under 

DOL’s GPRA goal to “minimize the human, 

social, and financial impact of work-related injuries 

for workers and their families” were as follows:

In the processing of Part B and Part E final 

decisions through the efforts of FAB, 88 percent of 

Part B and Part E decisions in FY 2007 were within 

the program standards, in excess of the goal of 85 

percent.

DOL set an important goal to complete initial 

processing on the remaining Part E backlog 

of cases (the remainder of the 25,000 cases 

inherited from DOE) by the end of FY 2007. DOL 

accomplished that goal, and with over 4,500 

cases receiving initial processing in FY 2007, initial 

processing of 100 percent of the backlog is now 

completed.

In FY 2007, DOL set a new goal to create a baseline 

average for completion of initial processing of 

claims. The baseline set in FY 2007 for Part B claims 

was 238 days and 293 days for Part E claims.

Services to Claimants

Both, DEEOIC’s District Offices and the network 

of Resource Centers (RCs) at major DOE sites 

has provided in-person and telephone-based 

assistance to current and former DOE employees, 

contractors and subcontractors, uranium workers, 

and surviving family members who sought to file 

claims under the Act. All district offices have tollfree telephone numbers to assist claimants from 

around the country. In FY 2007 the district offices 

received over 133,000 phone calls and returned 

nearly all calls that required a return call within 

two business days. The RC contractor has 54 

employees at 11 sites who help claimants complete 

the necessary claim forms, assist in gathering 

the documentation necessary to support their 
50

claims, and forward claim forms and associated 

documentation to the appropriate district office. 

The RCs also continue to carry out responsibilities 

related to initial employment verification and Part 

E occupational history development. During FY 

2007, the RCs processed 8,565 initial employment 

verification requests and conducted 6,828 

occupational history interviews.

In addition, RC personnel supported 

the collaborative outreach efforts led by the DOL 

Branch of Outreach and Technical Assistance 

(BOTA) in the national office, and the four district 

offices. In June of FY 2007, and three-day Traveling 

Resource Center (TRC) was assembled to conduct 

outreach in Simi Valley, California. By the end of 

FY 2007, a total of 40 claims were filed as a result 

of the TRC. Other examples of the outreach 

activities the district offices and RCs performed 

included community initiatives, meetings with 

local governments and chambers of commerce, 

and presentations to personnel at covered facilities 

and unions, among others. Collectively, these 

outreach activities were successful in reaching a 

large number of eligible claimants. During FY 

2007, there were 864 separate outreach events that 

generated 9,908 claims.

In response to Assistant Secretary for 

Employment Standards Victoria Lipnic’s April 

20, 2007 open letter, DEEOIC developed a new 

outreach program geared toward informing 

living workers about impairment, wage loss, 

and medical benefits, and soliciting feedback on 

program performance and areas of improvement. 

Part of that program included training for the 

RCs on outreach for impairment and wage loss 

claims. Town Hall Meetings and focus group 

meetings were held July 25-26, 2007, in Oak 

Ridge, Tennessee, and September 19-21, 2007, in 

Kennewick, Washington.

DEEOIC’s Web site continued to be 

maintained daily, and allowed claimants to 

access brochures, complete forms, and file claims 

electronically. The site also offered information 

about the statute and regulations governing Part 

B and Part E; the locations and times of town 

hall meetings; district office and resource center 

locations and contact numbers; press releases; 

medical provider enrollment information; current 

claims processing and payments statistics, at the 

national, state, and facility levels; links to DOE, 

DOJ, and NIOSH Web sites; and toll-free numbers 

where additional information and assistance could 

be obtained. EEOICPA regulations, a searchable 

database of DEEOIC final decisions, a link to 

provide Part E information that includes the 

EEOICPA Part E procedure manual, and DEEOIC 

and NIOSH weekly Web statistics continue to be 

found on the web site. In addition, all final policy 

bulletins and circulars are available to the public 

on the web site. In FY 2007, 30 policy bulletins and 

eight circulars clarifying the administration of both 

Parts of the program were posted to the site. 

To assist in the collection of relevant 

evidence, the DEEOIC has contracted with 

the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights (CPWR) 

for assistance in obtaining records pertinent to 

construction and trade employees at DOE, AWE, 

or Beryllium Vendor facilities. CPWR has been 

tasked to research and provide employment 

information for construction/trade worker claims 

where DOL has been unable to obtain reliable 

information through available resources. In FY 

2007, DOL renewed its contract with CPWR, and 

provided responses to more than 2,000 requests 

for information.

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 
51

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

to claimants, potential claimants, and other 

interested parties on the benefits available under 

EEOICPA and how to obtain those benefits. The 

Office of the Ombudsman, independent from 

OWCP, reports annually to Congress concerning 

complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance 

received during the calendar year covered by 

the report. In FY 2007, the Ombudsman’s 2006 

Annual Report was made available through 

a link from DEEOIC’s Web site, and a policy 

analyst continues to work directly with the 

Ombudsman’s office to promptly resolve any 

issues and concerns.

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 2007. In 

addition, DEEOIC avoided $2.2 million in costs 

during the year due to further improvements in 

the editing of bills.

Timely and meticulous medical bill 

processing is critical in the administration of the 

EEOICPA. In FY 2007, the authorization process 

for home health services was enhanced to give 

providers the capability to request authorizations 

via the web portal in a more efficient and accurate 

manner.

By the end of FY 2007, the vendor had 

processed 152,665 EEOICPA bills and handled 

29,079 telephone calls. Authorizations for medical 

treatment were processed in an average of one 

workday and 97 percent of bills were processed 

within 28 days. Enrollment of 28,291 new 

providers brought the total of enrolled providers 

to 115,058.

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. A significant 

accomplishment for BAS was the acquisition 

of new computer services vendors to support 

ongoing computer operations, and to advance 

new program information technology 

initiatives. With program management, software 

development and independent verification 

and validation vendors collaborating under the 

direction of BAS project managers, BAS completed 

comprehensive requirements gathering and 

documentation, and accomplished during FY 

2007 important technical design work for a project 

to develop a new case management system. The 

new system will consolidate and modernize the 

existing case management systems, accommodate 

new business processes and rules, improve claims 

processing efficiency, and help bring the OWCP 

technology base into conformance with Federal, 

DOL and Employment Standards Administration 

target enterprise architecture objectives and goals. 

Among other notable achievements in FY 2007 

were extensive revisions to statistical presentations 

on the DEEOIC web site, and exhaustive 

refinement and expansion of recurring case 

management and statistical reporting that enabled 

claims personnel and managers to meet strategic 

and operational goals.

Also in FY 2007, DEEOIC enhanced its 

database of “site exposure matrices” to help claims 

examiners determine the types of chemicals 

and toxic substances that existed at the major 

DOE facilities, easing claimants’ evidentiary 

burdens and speeding the claims process. The 
52

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) project conducted 

record reviews at 29 major DOE sites during 

FY 2007. In conjunction with the record review 

project, 41 roundtable meetings were held 

with current and former DOE workers. Onsite 

record reviews and roundtable meetings yielded 

information on over 360 toxic substances. By the 

end of FY 2007, the SEM housed information 

on 2,581 toxic substances/chemicals present at 

33 DOE sites, 4,170 uranium mines, 48 uranium 

mills, and 17 uranium ore buying stations covered 

under EEOICPA.

In conjunction with exposure 

development, the SEM project continued working 

to improve exposure and medical data available 

in the Haz-Map website database. Haz-Map is 

a database housed by the National Library of 

Medicine (NLM) that contains a wide array of 

information regarding occupational exposure 

to hazardous agents. DOL contracted with 

the author of Haz-Map to evaluate exposure 

information obtained during covered facility 

document reviews and to upload the author’s 

analysis into Haz-Map. Our effort with NLM and 

the Haz-Map database have allowed DEEOIC to 

assist in profiling hundreds of substances since the 

inception of the agreement, with over 150 agents 

profiled in FY 2007. This work for the SEM project 

assists DOL in developing and adjudicating claims 

filed under Part E of EEOICPA, and relieves 

claimants of some of the burden of proof in their 

claims.

Performance Assessment

In FY 2007, EEOICPA was assessed using the 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). With a 

rating of “Adequate,” the PART found:

DEEOIC collects extensive performance data and 

uses it to manage and improve performance. The 

program has achieved efficiencies and effectiveness 

in program execution, increasing the average 

number of claims decisions per FTE from 116.8 to 

190.7 between 2005 and 2006. The program ensures 

that funds are spent for the intended purpose, and 

payments reach the intended beneficiaries.

The program’s statutory design reduces its 

effectiveness. The program’s design requires the 

involvement of multiple agencies in certain claims 

decisions, resulting in delays. The program also 

does not prevent the duplicate payment of benefits 

by state and Federal workers’ compensation 

programs.

The program has not undergone a comprehensive 

independent evaluation. DOL has, however, 

completed a contracted evaluation of its cancer 

claims adjudication process comparing its systems 

with state workers’ compensation programs, DOJ’s 

RECA program, and the Veterans Administration’s 

program.

Key recommendations of the PART 

review included pursuing actions to improve 

the performance of the program. These actions 

include: 

Working with NIOSH to establish compatible 

timeliness measures that are consistent with 

program goals, and reporting performance against 

those goals.

Obtaining an independent, comprehensive 

evaluation of the program.

Improving coordination with state workers’ 

compensation systems to prevent duplicate 

payments.
53

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Evaluation of DEEOIC’s Part 

B Cancer Claims Adjudication 

Process

DOL contracted with ICF International to assess 

the efficiency and effectiveness of DEEOIC’s 

adjudication process for cancer claims under 

its Part B program. ICF’s evaluation included 

studying the operations of three other state 

and Federal workers’ compensation programs 

(Veterans Affairs Atomic Soldiers Program and 

Other Radiation Claims Processing, the State of 

Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Program, and 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Workers’ 

Compensation Program) to identify possible 

performance comparisons to DEEOIC and 

effective practices for potential integration into 

DEEOIC’s adjudication process.

In its report, ICF notes that DEEOIC 

collects and regularly analyzes a broad range of 

performance data relative to the administration of 

the EEOICPA, and that the program’s information 

management system is versatile and robust in 

providing routine reports, and allows staff to 

research issues beyond everyday analyses. As 

for the comparison to the other programs, ICF 

found that due to the substantial diversity of 

program structures and processes between the 

three programs, a direct comparison to DEEOIC’s 

adjudication process would not result in any 

meaningful conclusions. In reviewing the 

DEEOIC program itself, however, ICF found that 

DEEOIC’s program for the adjudication of Part B 

cancer claims functions efficiently and effectively.

Regulatory Activities

Following the publication and receipt of public 

comments on the Interim Final Rule, DOL 

submitted the Proposed Final Rule (PFR) to the 

Office of Management and Budget on June 23, 

2006. The PFR addressed all the issues raised 

by the comments and included minor changes 

that did not result from the comments, but in 

part, simply recognized existing practice. The 

EEOICPA final rule was published on December 

29, 2006, and the final regulations became effective 

on February 27, 2007.

Litigation

In Willingham v. Department of Labor, 475 F.Supp.2d 

607 (N.D. Tex. 2007), which was the first case 

challenging the September 14, 2005 denial of a 

claim for benefits under Part B of EEOICPA based 

on a dose reconstruction report from NIOSH, 

the plaintiff sought review of the administrative 

decision on her claim under the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), and alleged that her claimed 

cancers were due to exposure to radiation in the 

performance of duty. On February 9, 2007, the 

court found that DEEOIC’s final decision denying 

the plaintiff’s Part B claim was reviewable under 

the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review 

set out in the APA, that such review was limited 

to the EEOICPA case file, and that a presumption 

of validity attached to DEEOIC’s decision. The 

court also found that NIOSH had considered 

the relevant information and estimated the 

plaintiff’s exposure to radiation based upon that 

information. Given the statutory requirement of 

a 50 percent or more probability that a covered 

employee’s cancer was caused by covered 

employment, the Court found that the denial of 

the plaintiff’s Part B claim was neither arbitrary 

nor capricious and granted summary judgment 

for the Department of Labor.
54

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act Part B Part E 1

 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2006

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 251 296 188 211

Administrative Expenditures 2

 $44.0 M $53.1 M $51.8 M $62.5 M

Claims Created 7,908 8,709 16,556 11,090

Recommended Decisions 

 (Covered Applications) 13,207 13,326 16,458 15,928

Final Decisions (Covered Applications) 12,169 12,079 9,777 17,427

Number of Claims Approved (Final) 6,103 6,374 6,357 7,057

Total Lump Sum Compensation Payments 3 $462.2 M $464.4 M $280.3 M $361.7 M

Number of Medical Bill Payments 97,103 116,662 585 2,458

Total Medical Payments 4 $ 40.8 M $ 54.9 M $ 0.8 M $ 0.7 M

1

 Part  became effective during FY 2005 (October 28, 2004

2 Includes Department of Labor expenditures only; Part B excludes funds apportioned to the Department of Health and Hu

Services for that agency’s responsibilities under EEOICPA ($59.8 million in FY 2006 and $54.8 million in FY 2007, respect

while Part  excludes funding for the Office of the Ombudsman ($0.5 million in FY 2006 and $0.7 million in FY 2007, respectiv

3 Excludes payments made by DOL for Department of Justice (DOJ) Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA)

claims. DOL serves as a pass through and utilizes the compensation fund established under EEOICPA for DOJ’s paym

$100,000 to qualifying Section 5 RECA claimants as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 7384ud).  These payments totaled $78.8 mil

in FY 2006 and $80.1 million in FY 2007, respectivel

4 Part B medical payments represent payments made for cases accepted under both Part B and Part E. PartE medical payment

represent payments made for Part  only
55

 Page

A. FECA Tables A1 - A4 56

B. Black Lung Tables B1 - B6 60

C. LHWCA Tables C1 - C5 66

D. EEOICPA Tables D1 – D5 71

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.

Appendix
56

 Table A-1

Federal Employees’ Compensation Rol

FY 1998 - FY 2007

(Cases at End-of-Year)

Fiscal Year

Roll Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

 

Total Periodic Roll 56,159 54,897 54,709 56,133 56,751 58,621 57,827 60,709 55,433 51,125 

Long-Term Disability 50,105 48,957 48,870 50,409 51,092 53,099 52,377 55,257 49,910 46,258 

Death 6,054 5,940 5,839 5,724 5,659 5,522 5,450 5,452 5,523 4,867 
57

FECA Tables A1 — A2

Table A-2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Progr

Summary of Claims Activi

FY 1998 - FY 2007

Fiscal Year

Claim Activity 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Incoming Cases

Cases Created 165,135 166,544 174,471 165,915 158,118 168,174 162,965 151,690 139,874 134,360

Traumatic 138,975 140,383 145,915 137,877 132,250 142,325 138,521 129,427 119,082 114,592

 No Lost Time 75,321 83,472 91,620 86,402 80,439 84,368 80,018 74,071 67,127 64,896

 Lost Time 63,654 56,911 54,295 51,475 51,811 57,957 58,503 55,356 51,955 49,696

Occupational Disease 25,954 25,999 28,406 27,869 25,739 25,747 24,320 22,114 20,592 19,633

Fatal Cases 206 162 150 169 129 102 124 149 200 135

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 19,315 19,759 21,899 23,386 23,193 24,245 24,189 21,455 19,819 19,104

Hearings and Review

Total Requests for Hearing 7,496 7,164 6,992 6,875 6,820 6,751 8,132 6,757 6,241 6,556

Total Hearing Dispositions 8,087 7,926 7,418 6,599 6,272 6,743 7,682 6,961 7,424 7,581
58

Table A-3

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program Obligatio

FY 1998 - FY 2007

($ thousands)

Fiscal Year

Type of 

Obligation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total 

Obligations $2,024,494 $2,076,475 $2,170,247 $2,308,595 $2,418,364 $2,475,108 $2,568,390 $2,602,815 $2,553,930 $2,707,196 

Total Benefits 1,944,259 1,989,050 2,078,715 2,199,276 2,307,942 2,345,472 2,434,609 2,476,479 2,418,796 2,563,055

 Compensation 

 Benefits 1,343,879 1,370,206 1,403,154 1,453,740 1,509,275 1,556,845 1,600,501 1,664,405 1,621,357 1,684,248 

 

 Medical 

 Benefits 476,167 492,835 548,596 617,414 667,797 658,121 703,571 672,006 668,205 743,124 

 

 Survivor 

 Benefits 124,213 126,009 126,965 128,122 130,870 130,506 130,537 140,068 129,234 135,683 

 

Total 

Administrative 

Expenditures 80,235 87,425 91,532 109,319 110,422 129,636 133,781 126,336 135,134 144,141

 Salaries and 

 Expenses 69,207 67,567 70,634 78,971 81,210 86,358 86,253 86,811 88,435 90,113 

 Fair Share 11,028 19,858 20,898 30,348 29,212 43,278 47,528 39,525 46,699 54,028
59

FECA Tables A3 — A4

Table A-4

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program Chargeback Cos

by Major Federal Agenc

CBY 1998 - CBY 2007

($ thousands)

Chargeback Year 1

Federal Agency 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total Costs $1,887,980 $1,908,256 $2,024,634 $2,129,097 $2,219,448 $2,323,288 $2,339,782 $2,334,194 $2,440,711 $2,494,096

U.S. Postal 

Service 577,159 594,503 666,310 720,518 785,199 846,876 852,945 840,141 884,078 924,138 

Department of 

the Navy 243,938 240,492 241,585 246,881 248,250 245,461 245,145 237,791 244,318 244,037 

Department of 

the Army 162,152 163,127 166,989 169,219 174,832 181,298 177,250 174,660 180,248 178,993 

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 140,118 137,865 143,221 145,909 151,612 157,315 155,391 156,170 164,091 166,087 

Department of 

Homeland Security N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 83,975 121,089 138,342 156,734 158,529

Department of 

the Air Force 124,302 123,349 128,134 134,106 132,538 135,509 129,229 124,516 126,663 130,298 

Department 

of Justice 67,875 76,319 83,873 91,197 95,620 66,131 74,011 80,090 89,156 94,395 

Department 

of Transportation 95,823 97,155 96,936 99,556 101,716 94,682 92,659 92,687 92,830 93,609 

Department 

of Agriculture 60,348 59,851 64,882 66,750 69,563 72,312 69,245 68,681 70,185 70,802

Department of 

Defense 62,729 63,563 64,797 64,761 63,888 65,429 63,816 62,996 65,460 62,630 

All Other 

Agencies 353,536 352,033 367,907 390,201 396,230 374,299 359,003 358,120 366,948 370,578

1 A year for chargeback purposes is from July 1 through June 30.
60

Table B-1

Part  Black Lung Claims Adjudicat

at the Initial Level

FY 2007

Type of Claim PDO’s Issued 1 Approval Rate

Trust Fund 729

Approved 139 19.07%

Denied 590

Responsible Operators 3,611

Approved 462 12.79%

Denied 3,149

Total Findings 4,340

Total Approved 601 13.85%

Total Denied 3,739

1 PDO is “Proposed Decision and Order”.
61

Black Lung Tables B1 — B2

Table B-2

Distribution of Part 

Black Lung Claims and Disbursements, by Stat

FY 2007

Total Claims MBO Total Benefits

 State Received 1 Claims 2 In Payment 3 ($ 000) 4

Alabama 34,081 49 888 $7,079 

Alaska 152 0 10 80 

Arizona 2,048 5 126 1,004 

Arkansas 3,823 11 167 1,331 

California 6,471 9 226 1,802 

Colorado 7,048 14 409 3,261

Connecticut 1,002 1 63 502 

Delaware 778 2 62 494 

District of Columbia 285 0 14 128 

Florida 11,903 55 755 6,018

Georgia 1,655 4 161 1,284 

Hawaii 16 0 1 8 

Idaho 253 0 20 160

Illinois 31,371 50 1,084 8,642 

Indiana 17,923 33 725 5,780 

Iowa 5,141 4 222 1,770 

Kansas 2,176 1 59 470

Kentucky 92,531 736 4,740 37,788 

Louisiana 352 1 18 143 

Maine 45 0 4 32

Maryland 6,665 19 341 2,718 

Massachusetts 239 1 17 136 

Michigan 10,506 17 398 3,173 

Minnesota 145 0 7 56 

Mississippi 364 1 25 199

Missouri 4,642 2 173 1,369 

Montana 856 1 33 263 

Nebraska 129 0 6 48 

Nevada 431 1 37 295 

New Hampshire 27 0 7 56 

New Jersey 4,299 9 244 1,945 

New Mexico 2,405 1 113 901 

New York 4,026 8 193 1,538 

North Carolina 3,504 26 313 2,495

North Dakota 157 0 5 40 

Ohio 53,817 120 2,581 20,576

Oklahoma 3,789 10 138 1,100

Oregon 630 0 31 247

Pennsylvania 136,933 556 9,797 78,101

Rhode Island 40 0 2 16 

South Carolina 933 6 117 933

South Dakota 51 0 4 32

Tennessee 21,159 123 1,028 8,195 

Texas 1,731 3 111 885 

Utah 4,126 13 248 1,977

Vermont 49 0 5 40 

Virginia 43,954 407 3,383 26,969

Washington 1,588 4 64 510 

West Virginia 111,377 796 7,176 57,207 

Wisconsin 451 1 31 247

Wyoming 2,621 0 140 1,116 

All Other 450 1 19 151 

TOTAL 641,148 3,101 36,541 $291,310 

1 All filings since July 1, 1973, including terminated and nonapproved claims.

2 Active Medical Benefits Only (MBO) claims as of 9/30/07.

3 Active claims in payment status, excluding MBO claims, as of 9/30/07.

4 Disbursements of income and medical benefits for all claims, including claims 

paid by the Trust Fund and claims in interim pay status.

Note: Data in column no. 1 may not be consistent with changes from previous years due 

to a change in computer systems.
62

Table B-3

Part  Black Lung Claims, by Class of Benefici

FY 1998 - FY 2007 1

Number of Beneficiaries 2

Class of Beneficiary 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Primary Beneficiaries:

Miners 27,340 24,838 22,568 18,248 16,395 14,773 13,398 12,012 10,857 9,744 

Widows 41,585 40,517 39,053 35,660 34,236 32,615 30,810 29,110 27,366 25,556 

Others 1,476 1,508 1,497 1,467 1,221 1,238 1,247 1,248 1,258 1,241 

Total Primary Beneficiaries 70,401 66,863 63,118 55,375 51,852 48,626 45,455 42,370 39,481 36,541 

Dependents of Primary 

Beneficiaries:

Dependents of Miners 22,158 19,953 17,978 13,924 12,432 11,131 10,020 9,004 8,088 7,205

Dependents of Widows 1,417 1,384 1,306 1,123 1,077 1,052 1,006 944 874 840 

Dependents of Others 512 516 508 108 386 353 238 213 146 140 

Total Dependents 24,087 21,853 19,792 15,155 13,895 12,536 11,264 10,161 9,108 8,185 

Total, All Beneficiaries 94,488 88,716 82,910 70,530 65,747 61,162 56,719 52,531 48,589 44,726 

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

Black Lung Tables B3 — B4

Table B-4

Department of Labor Part  Black Lung Benefits Program Obligation

FY 1998 - FY 2007

($ thousands)

Fiscal Year

Type of 

Obligation 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Total 

Obligations $999,822 $1,005,246 $1,013,593 $1,016,994 $1,034,096 $1,046,303 $1,053,246 $1,061,698 $1,060,006 $1,068,295 

Total 

Benefits 1 459,061 439,442 422,656 396,928 384,234 370,389 346,864 329,933 307,067 291,310

 Income 

 Benefits 2 376,985 363,871 350,266 336,813 320,039 307,371 292,555 279,965 265,365 252,020 

 Medical 

 Benefits 3 82,076 75,571 72,390 60,116 64,196 63,018 54,309 49,968 41,702 39,290

Administrative 

Costs 4 46,035 50,788 49,820 52,252 54,273 55,332 55,803 56,872 57,975 59,772 

Interest 

Charges 5 494,726 515,016 541,117 567,814 595,589 620,582 650,579 674,894 694,964 717,214

Repayable 

Advances 6 370,000 402,000 490,000 505,000 465,000 525,000 497,000 446,000 445,000 426,000

Cumulative 

Debt 7 $5,856,557 $6,258,557 $6,748,557 $7,253,557 $7,718,557 $8,243,557 $8,740,557 $9,186,557 $9,631,557 $10,057,557 

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 costs, and reimbursements to the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human 

Services and the Health and Retirement Funds of the UMWA.

4 Administrative expenses include reimbursements to SSA.

5 Starting in 1979, the Trust Fund had to borrow funds from the Treasury 

Department to pay operating costs not covered by revenues. Interest charges 

reflect the cost to the Trust Fund for those advances from the Treasury.

6 Reflects advances from the Treasury Department during the fiscal year.

7 Shows the cumulative debt of the Trust Fund to the Treasury.

Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
64

Table B-5

Monthly Part  Black Lung Benefit Rate

1973 - 2007

Benefit Rates by Type of Beneficiary 

Claimant and Claimant and Claimant and 3 or

 Period Claimant 1 Dependent 2 Dependents More Dependents

7/1/73-9/30/73 $169.80 $254.70 $297.10 $339.50 

10/1/73-9/30/74 177.60 266.40 310.80 355.20 

10/1/74-9/30/75 187.40 281.10 328.00 374.80 

10/1/75-9/30/76 196.80 295.20 344.40 393.50 

10/1/76-9/30/77 205.40 308.10 359.50 410.80 

10/1/77-9/30/78 219.90 329.80 384.80 439.70 

10/1/78-9/30/79 232.00 348.00 405.90 463.90 

10/1/79-9/30/80 254.00 381.00 444.50 508.00 

10/1/80-9/30/81 279.80 419.60 489.60 559.50 

10/1/81-9/30/82 293.20 439.80 513.10 586.40 

10/1/82-12/31/83 304.90 457.30 533.60 609.80 

1/1/84-12/31/84 1 317.10 475.60 554.90 634.20 

1/1/85-12/31/86 328.20 492.30 574.30 656.40 

1/1/87-12/31/87 338.00 507.00 591.50 676.00 

1/1/88-12/31/88 344.80 517.20 603.40 689.60 

1/1/89-12/31/89 358.90 538.30 628.10 717.80 

1/1/90-12/31/90 371.80 557.70 650.60 743.60 

1/1/91-12/31/91 387.10 580.60 677.40 774.10

1/1/92-12/31/92 403.30 605.00 705.80 806.60 

1/1/93-12/31/93 418.20 627.30 731.90 836.40 

1/1/94-12/31/94 427.40 641.10 748.00 854.80 

1/1/95-12/31/95 427.40 641.10 748.00 854.80 

1/1/96-12/31/96 435.10 652.70 761.50 870.20 

1/1/97-12/31/97 445.10 667.70 779.00 890.20 

1/1/98-12/31/98 455.40 683.10 796.90 910.70 

1/1/99-12/31/99 469.50 704.30 821.60 939.00 

1/1/00-12/31/00 487.40 731.00 852.80 974.70 

1/1/01-12/31/01 500.50 750.80 875.90 1,001.00 

1/1/02-12/31/02 518.50 777.80 907.40 1,037.00 

1/1/03-12/31/03 534.60 801.90 935.50 1,069.20 

1/1/04-12/31/04 549.00 823.50 960.80 1,098.00 

1/1/05-12/31/05 562.80 844.10 984.80 1,125.50 

1/1/06-12/31/06 574.60 861.80 1005.50 1149.10 

1/1/07-12/31/07 584.40 876.50 1022.60 1168.70

1 These benefit rates include the additional one-half percent increase that was 

granted retroactive to January 1, 1984. The rates in effect prior to the retroactive 

payments (1/1/84 through 6/30/84) were: $315.60 for a claimant only; $473.30 

for a claimant and 1 dependent; $552.20 for a claimant and 2 dependents; and, 

$631.10 for a claimant and 3 or more dependents.
65

Black Lung Tables B5 — B6

Table B-6

Funding and Disbursements 

of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

FY 2007

($ thousands)

Funding Disbursements

Coal Excise

Tax Treasury Income Medical Benefits Total Admin. Interest on

Month Revenue Advances Reimburse 1 Total Benefits 2 Diagnostic Treatment 3 Benefits Costs Advances Total

October 2006 $9,358 $0 $367 $9,725 $21,293 $294 $2,500 $24,088 $4,099 $0 $28,186

November 2006 47,391 0 171 47,562 21,358 373 $3,704 25,435 4,058 0 29,493 

December 2006 55,434 0 374 55,808 21,372 290 $2,791 24,453 3,138 0 27,591 

January 2007 44,323 0 138 44,461 21,362 305 $3,762 25,429 5,886 0 31,315 

February 2007 52,033 0 258 52,291 21,468 273 $3,537 25,278 4,183 0 29,461

March 2007 49,782 0 208 49,990 21,540 363 $3,040 24,943 3,639 0 28,582 

April 2007 53,389 0 570 53,959 21,231 279 $3,039 24,549 5,985 0 30,534

May 2007 68,566 0 537 69,103 20,825 292 $3,028 24,145 5,985 0 30,130 

June 2007 55,469 0 426 55,895 20,660 254 $1,803 22,716 5,885 0 28,601 

July 2007 53,567 0 400 53,967 20,358 307 $2,514 23,179 5,629 0 28,807 

August 2007 66,056 0 538 66,594 20,342 362 $3,356 24,060 5,630 0 29,690 

September 2007 83,829 426,000 219 510,048 20,210 332 $2,492 23,034 5,657 717,214 745,904

Totals $639,197 $426,000 $4,207 $1,069,404 $252,020 $3,723 $35,567 $291,310 $59,772 $717,214 $1,068,295

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.
66

Table C-1

Total Industry Compensation

and Benefit Payments Under LHWC

CY 1997 - CY 2006 2

($ thousands)

Calendar Year

Payments By: 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Self-Insured 

Employers $263,255 $261,559 $283,991 $278,952 $307,708 $310,940 $309,843 $322,520 $325,694 $368,744 

Insurance Carriers 219,352 238,464 232,778 249,671 236,726 246,603 262,753 278,887 325,027 367,625 

Total Payments $482,607 $500,023 $516,769 $528,623 $544,434 $557,543 $572,596 $601,407 $650,721 $736,369 

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

LHWCA Tables C1 — C2

Table C-2

National Average Weekly Wage (NAWW) and Correspondi

Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates and Annual Adjustmen

Pursuant to Sections 6(b), 9(e), and 10(f) of LHW

 Maximum Minimum Annual Adjustment

 Period NAWW Payable Payable (% Increase in NAWW)

11/26/72-9/30/73 $131.80 $167.00 $65.90 —

10/01/73-9/30/74 140.26 210.54 70.18 6.49

10/01/74-9/30/75 149.10 261.00 74.57 6.26

10/01/75-9/30/76 159.20 318.38 79.60 6.74

10/01/76-9/30/77 171.28 342.54 85.64 7.59

10/01/77-9/30/78 183.61 367.22 91.81 7.21

10/01/78-9/30/79 198.39 396.78 99.20 8.05

10/01/79-9/30/80 213.13 426.26 106.57 7.43

10/01/80-9/30/81 228.12 456.24 114.06 7.03

10/01/81-9/30/82 248.35 496.70 124.18 8.87

10/01/82-9/30/83 262.35 524.70 131.18 5.64

10/01/83-9/30/84 274.17 548.34 1 137.09 4.51

10/01/84-9/30/85 289.83 579.66 144.92 5.71 2

10/01/85-9/30/86 297.62 595.24 148.81 2.69

10/01/86-9/30/87 302.66 605.32 151.33 1.69

10/01/87-9/30/88 308.48 616.96 154.24 1.92

10/01/88-9/30/89 318.12 636.24 159.06 3.13

10/01/89-9/30/90 330.31 660.62 165.16 3.83

10/01/90-9/30/91 341.07 682.14 170.54 3.26

10/01/91-9/30/92 349.98 699.96 174.99 2.61

10/01/92-9/30/93 360.57 721.14 180.29 3.03

10/01/93-9/30/94 369.15 738.30 184.58 2.38

10/01/94-9/30/95 380.46 760.92 190.23 3.06

10/01/95-9/30/96 391.22 782.44 195.61 2.83

10/01/96-9/30/97 400.53 801.06 200.27 2.38

10/01/97-9/30/98 417.87 835.74 208.94 4.33

10/01/98-9/30/99 435.88 871.76 217.94 4.31

10/01/99-9/30/00 450.64 901.28 225.32 3.39

10/01/00-9/30/01 466.91 933.82 233.46 3.61

10/01/01-9/30/02 483.04 966.08 241.52 3.45

10/01/02-9/30/03 498.27 996.54 249.14 3.15

10/01/03-9/30/04 515.39 1,030.78 257.70 3.44

10/01/04-9/30/05 523.58 1,047.16 261.79 1.59

10/01/05-9/30/06 536.82 1,073.64 268.41 2.53

10/01/06-9/30/07 557.22 1,114.44 278.61 3.80

1 Maximum became applicable in death cases (for any death after September 28, 

1984) pursuant to LHWCA Amendments of 1984. Section 9(e)(1) provides that 

the total weekly death benefits shall not exceed the lesser of the average weekly 

wages of the deceased or the benefits that the deceased would have been eligible 

to receive under section 6(b)(1). Maximum in death cases not applicable to 

DCCA cases (Keener v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 800 

F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. (1986)).

2

 Five percent statutory maximum increase applicable in FY 1985 under section 

10(f) of LHWCA, as amended. Maximum increase not applicable to DCCA 

cases (see note 1, above).
68

Table C-3

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Expendi

FY 1998 - FY 2007

($ thousands)

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 1991 - FY 1993, and 

FY 1995 - 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.

1998 $129,777 $118,496 $2,699 $3,718 $4,864 5,208 $12,521 $10,810 $802 $4 $904 638 

1999 131,152 117,574 2,439 4,888 6,251 5,145 11,879 10,748 747 6 377 617 

2000 131,564 119,198 2,459 4,595 5,313 5,025 11,804 10,521 728 0 555 612 

2001 133,374 119,952 2,295 5,121 6,006 4,953 11,341 10,368 708 0 265 601 

2002 131,715 119,661 2,240 4,801 5,013 4,880 11,386 10,214 702 0 469 585 

2003 131,589 119,965 2,153 4,628 4,844 4,778 11,184 9,997 664 0 523 572 

2004 135,247 122,358 2,081 4,990 5,818 4,694 10,920 9,867 645 0 408 544 

2005 134,549 122,418 1,973 5,002 5,156 4,588 10,604 9,767 597 0 240 527 

2006 133,270 123,412 1,811 2,749 5,298 4,908 10,246 9,418 588 0 240 621 

2007 131,920 117,524 1,796 6,715 5,885 4,728 10,087 9,260 613 0 214 603

LHWCA

Expenditures ($)

DCCA

Expenditures ($)

Total Total

Second

Injury

Cases 2

Second

Injury

Cases 2

Pre

Amend.

Cases 3

Pre

Amend.

Cases 3 Rehab. 4 Rehab. Other 5 4 Other 5

Number 

of 

Second 

Injury 

Cases

Number 

of 

Second 

Injury 

FY Cases
69

LHWCA Tables C3 — C4

Table C-4

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Assess

CY 1998 - CY 2007

($ thousands)

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 computuing 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.

1998 $111,000 $334,339 CY 1997 $11,000 $5,911 CY 1997

1999 130,000 343,146 CY 1998 11,300 6,232 CY 1998

2000 133,000 353,462 CY 1999 12,700 5,179 CY 1999

2001 133,000 361,549 CY 2000 12,000 5,103 CY 2000

2002 125,000 372,376 CY 2001 11,000 5,552 CY 2001

2003 125,000 364,194 CY 2002 10,800 4,746 CY 2002

2004 137,000 368,671 CY 2003 11,500 4,286 CY 2003

2005 135,000 388,258 CY 2004 11,500 5,402 CY 2004

2006 125,000 418,714 CY 2005 10,500 4,277 CY 2005

2007 125,000 471,133 CY 2006 10,000 4,184 CY 2006

LHWCA DCCA

CY

Total Industry

Assessments 2

Total Industry

Assessments 2

Preceding Year Total

Industry Payments 3

Preceding Year Total

Industry Payments

Assessment

Base Yr.

Assessment

Base Yr.
70

LHWCA Table C5

Table C-5

Summary of Case Processing Activities Under LH

FY 1998 - FY 2007

Fiscal Year

Adjudication Level

and Case Status 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

District Offices

Pending Inventory of Cases 6,974 9,006 8,675 6,489 7,391 5,495 6,051 6,375 6,338 8,563 7

OALJ

Carryover from Previous FY 3,849 2 3,862 3,668 3,562 3,388 2,980 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 

New Cases 3,579 3,462 3,566 3,500 3,276 3,036 2,926 2,763 2,413 2,614 

Total Docket 7,428 7,324 7,234 7,062 6,664 6,016 5,443 5,118 4,731 4,598 

(Dispositions) 3,566 3,656 3,672 3,674 3,529 3,499 3,088 2,800 2,747 2,475 

Pending Inventory 3,862 3 3,668 3,562 3,388 2,980 6 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 

BRB

Carryover from Previous FY 348 318 326 295 248 208 267 222 211 182

New Cases 419 421 423 317 260 332 297 288 248 241

Total Docket 767 739 749 612 508 540 564 510 459 423 

(Dispositions) 464 438 467 384 319 282 355 304 288 282

Pending Inventory 318 4 326 5 295 5 248 5 208 5 267 5 222 5 211 5 182 5 152 5

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 The difference between the carryover in FY 1998 and pending inventory at the 

end of FY 1997 is due to data modifications and corrections made by the OALJ.

3 The FY 1998 numbers do not include 2,877 section 33(g) cases that were 

pending at the beginning of the year, or the 30 dispositions that occurred in such 

cases.

4 Data adjustments by the BRB account for the difference between the sum of 

activity in FY 1998 and that year’s pending inventory at year-end.

5 Data adjusted by BRB to account for misfiled, duplicate, or reinstated appeals.

6 Includes dispositions of Boone 33(g) cases.

7 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

EEOICPA Table D1 Part B

Table D-1 Part B

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of F

Case Status/Claims Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2007 59,028 85,585 

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2007 45,538 69,606 

Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) 4 35,645 51,195 

 Final Approved 19,538 28,776 

 Final Denied 16,107 22,419 

Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5 2,412 4,220

 Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 649 1,334

 Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 1,763 2,886 

Completed Initial Processing -

Referred to NIOSH 4,276 8,462 

Pending Initial Processing In District Office 6 3,205 5,729 

Lump Sum Compensations 17,936 26,792 

Total Payment Amounts $2,161,982,946 

1 Statistics show the status from program inception through September 30, 2007.

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 D-1 Part E

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of F

Case Status/Claims Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2007 48,707 67,155 

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2007 40,255 46,122 

Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) 4 25,501 26,371 

 Final Approved 13,232 13,691 

 Final Denied 12,269 12,680 

Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5 3,879 4,230 

 Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 989 1,157 

 Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 2,890 3,073 

Completed Initial Processing - Referred to NIOSH 2,280 2,590 

Pending Initial Processing in District Office 6 8,595 12,931

Compensation Payments (Unique Cases and Claims) 6,913 7,239 

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $833,869,598

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 5,473 5,795 

Total Lump Sum Payment Amts. $677,774,555 

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 739 919 

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts. $27,762,272 

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,423 1,423 

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $128,332,771 

1 Statistics show the status from program inception through September 30, 2007.

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.
73

EEOICPA Tables D1 Part E — D2 Part B

Table D-2 Part B

Processing Activit

 During FY 2007 on All EEOICPA Cases/

Processing Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2007 6,113 8,709

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2007 5,657 8,191

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2007 8,313 4 12,079

Final Approved 4,297 6,374

Final Denied 4,016 5,705 

Modification Orders in FY 2007 273 312 

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2007 8,939 13,326 

Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 4,552 6,908

Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 4,387 6,418 

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2007 5,412 7,706

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2007 see claim statistics 5,735 

Remands 911 1,411

1 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2007 only, therefore the 

number of activities reported do not add up to the total number of cases/claims 

received during FY 2007. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims 

received prior to FY 2007).

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 2007.
74

1 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2007 only, therefore the 

number of activities reported do not add up to the total number of cases/claims 

received during FY 2007. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims 

received prior to FY 2007).

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 2007.

Table D-2 Part E

Processing Activity

During FY 2007 on All EEOICPA Cases/

Processing Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2007 8,138 11,090 

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2007 6,958 8,309 

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2007 16,978 4 17,427 

Final Approved 6,841 7,057 

Final Denied 10,137 10,370 

Modification Orders in FY 2007 220 227 

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2007 15,316 15,928 

Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 7,251 7,511 

Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 8,065 8,417 

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2007 4,099 4,427 

Compensation Payments in FY 2007 (Unique Cases and Claims) 3,243 3,404 

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $361,741,807 

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,901 2,061 

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $234,273,117 

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 316 412 

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts. $12,683,038 

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,301 1,301 

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $114,785,652 

Remands 1,262 1,419 
75

EEOICPA Tables D2 Part E — D3 Part B

Table D-3 Part B

EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Pay

by Catergory, Program Inception Through September 30, 200

Total

Number of Percentage of Total Number of Compensation Paid 2 Percentage of Total

Category Approved Cases 1 Final Approvals Paid Claimants 1 ($ thousands) Compensaton Paid

Radiation Exposure Comp. Act (RECA) 3 5,391 27.5% 8,076 $268,359 12.4%

Special Exposure Cohort Cancer (CN) 6,164 31.4% 9,469 896,593 41.5%

Dose Reconstructed Cancer (CN) 4,875 24.9% 6,839 720,937 33.3%

Beryllium Disease (CBD) 4 1,668 8.5% 2,183 245,593 11.4%

Beryllium Sensitivity-Only (BS) 1,300 6.6% N/A N/A N/A

Silicosis (CS) 68 0.3% 79 10,100 0.5%

Multiple Conditions 5 142 0.7% 162 20,400 0.9%

TOTAL 19,608 100.0% 26,808 $2,161,982 100.0%

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 

9/30/2007, but payments were not issued.

2 Represents total lump sum compensation payments from EEOIC program 

inception through September 30, 2007.

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.
76

Table D-4 Part B

EEOICPA Covered and Non-Covered Application Cases Wit

Decision to Deny, Program Inception Through September 30, 2007

Reason for Denial Number of Cases 1

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE Facility, Atomic Weapons Employer, or Beryllium

Vendor During a Covered Time Period 2 3,434 

Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 465 

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part B of EEOICPA 2 9,626 

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability That the Cancer is Related to Employment

is Less Than 50 Percent 11,327 

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement 4,315 

Total 29,167

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

EEOICPA Tables D4 Part B — D4 Part E

Table D-4 Part E

EEOICPA Covered and Non-Covered Application Cases Wit

Decision to Deny, Program Inception Through September 30, 2007

Reason for Denial Number of Cases 1

Employee Did Not Work at a Covered DOE Facility, Atomic Weapons Employer, or Beryllium

Vendor During a Covered Time Period 2 2,066 

Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 2 5,507 

Dose Reconstruction Reveals the Probability That the Cancer is Related to Employment

is Less Than 50 Percent 2,889 

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement 9,380 

Total 19,842

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.
78

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.

Table D-5 Part B

Most Prevalent Non-Covered Medical Condition

EEOIC Program Inception Through September 30, 2

Percentage of All Denials

Non-Covered Medical Condition For This Condition 1

Other Lung Conditions 22%

Heart Condition/Failure/Attack/Hypertension 10

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease & Emphysema 8

Asbestosis 6

Renal Condition or Disorder (Kidney Failure, Kidney Stones) 5

Hearing Loss 3

Benign Tumors, Polyps, Skin Spots 3

Diabetes 3

Neurological Disorder 2

Thyroid Conditions (e.g., Hypothyroidism) 2

Anemia 1

Back or Neck Problems 1

Parkinson’s Disease 1

Psychological Conditions 1

All Other Non-Covered Conditions (Each Less Than 1%) or Other (Not Listed) 24

No Condition Reported on Claim Form or Blank Condition Type 8

EEOICPA Table D5 Part B

80

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

Shelby Hallmark

Deputy Director, Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs

Nancy M. Flynn

Director, Division of Planning,

Policy and Standards

Cecily Rayburn

Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dfec)

Douglas C. Fitzgerald, Director

Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dcmwc)

Steven D. Breeskin, Acting Director

Steven D. Breeskin, Deputy Director

Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc)

Michael Niss, Director

Division of Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation

(www.dol.gov/owcp/energy)

Rachel P. Leiton, Director

Christy A. Long, Deputy Director

LuAnn Kressley, Chief, Final Adjudication Branch

Office 

Directory
81

Region I/II — Northeast

(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, Virgin Islands)

Regional Office (New York)

Robert Sullivan, 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

Zev Sapir, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

201 Varick Street, Room 740

New York, NY 10014-0566

646-264-3000

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

617-624-6600

Boston Longshore District Office

David Groeneveld, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

JFK Federal Building, Room E-260

Boston, MA 02203

617-624-6750

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facility:

(New York Site)

David San Lorenzo, Office Manager

6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 2A, Box #2

Amherst, NY 14226

716-832-6200 (Toll-Free 1-800-941-3943)

newyork.center@rrohio.com

Region III — Philadelphia

(Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania,Virginia, West Virginia)

Regional Office

R. David Lotz, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

Curtis Center, Suite 780 West

170 S. Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3313

215-861-5400

Philadelphia FECA District Office

John McKenna, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

Curtis Center, Suite 715 East

170 S. Independence Mall West

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3308

215-861-5481

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
82

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

Stuart Glassman, 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)

Wilkes-Barre Black Lung District Office

Maribeth Girton, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

100 N. Wilkes-Barre Blvd., Room 300A

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702-5245

570-826-6457 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3755)

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

Vicki Frye, Supervisory Claims Examiner

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

425 Juliana Street, Suite 3116

Parkersburg, WV 26101-5352

304-420-6385 (Toll-Free 1-800-347-3751)

DCMWC Field Stations:

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Mine Safety & Health Academy, Rm. G-100

139 Airport Road

Beckley, WV 25802

304-252-9514

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Mine Safety and Health Administration

110 Gott Road

Princeton, WV 24740

304-425-8161
83

Office Directory

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Elkins Social Security Office

Jennings-Randolph Federal Building

300 3rd Street, Suite 325

Elkins, WV 26241

304-636-4747

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

523 Dingess Street

Logan, WV 25601

304-752-9514

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

Post Office Box 790

Uneeda, WV 25205

304-369-6050

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

604 Cheat Road

Morgantown, WV 26505

304-291-4277

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

Richard A. Brettell, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

400 West Bay Street, Room 943

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4776

Jacksonville FECA District Office

Magdalena Fernandez, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

400 West Bay Street, Room 826

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-357-4777

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)
84

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

Brenda K. Jamison, Assistant District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

402 Campbell Way

Mt. Sterling, KY 40353

859-498-9700 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4628)

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Paducah Site)

Katherine Fuller, Office Manager

Barkley Center, Unit 125

125 Memorial Drive

Paducah, KY 42001

270-534-0599 (Toll-Free 1-866-534-0599)

paducah.center@rrohio.com

(Savannah River Site)

Karen Hillman, Office Manager

1708 Bunting Drive

North Augusta, SC 29841

803-279-2728 (Toll-Free 1-866-666-4606)

srs.center@rrohio.com

(Oak Ridge Site)

Shirley White, Office Manager

Jackson Plaza Office Complex

800 Oak Ridge Turnpike – Suite C-103

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

865-481-0411 (Toll-Free 1-866-481-0411)

or.center@rrohio.gov

Region V/VII — Midwest

(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin, overseas cases)

Regional Office (Chicago)

Nancy Jenson, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

230 South Dearborn Street, 8th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

312-596-7131

Chicago FECA District Office

Joan Rosel, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

230 South Dearborn Street, 8th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604

312-596-7157

Cleveland FECA District Office

Karen Spence, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

1240 East Ninth Street, Room 851

Cleveland, OH 44199

216-357-5100

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)
85

Office Directory

Kansas City FECA District Office

Lois Maxwell, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

Two Pershing Square Building

2300 Main Street, Suite 1090

Kansas City, MO 64108-2416

816-502-0301

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facility:

(Portsmouth Site)

Jackie Sensue, Office Manager

1200 Gay Street

Portsmouth, OH 45662

740-353-6993 (Toll-Free 1-866-363-6993)

portsmouth.center@rrohio.com

Region VI/VIII -- Southwest

(Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 

Texas, Utah, Wyoming)

Regional Office (Dallas)

E. Martin Walker, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

525 South Griffin Street, Room 407

Dallas, TX 75202

972-850-2409

Dallas FECA District Office

Christina Stark, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

525 South Griffin Street, Room 100

Dallas, TX 75202

972-850-2300

Houston Longshore District Office

Brad Soshea, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

Mickey Leland Federal Building

1919 Smith Street, Suite 870

Houston, TX 77002

713-209-3235

New Orleans Longshore District Office

David Duhon, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

600 S. Maestri Place, Suite 617

New Orleans, LA 70130

504-589-2671

Denver FECA District Office

Shirley Bridge, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

1999 Broadway, Suite 600

Denver, CO 80202

720-264-3000

Denver Black Lung District Office

Valerie Jackson, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

1999 Broadway, Suite 690

Denver, CO 80202

720-264-3100 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4612)

Denver Energy District Office

Janet Kapsin, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

1999 Broadway, Suite 1120

Denver, CO 80202-5711

720-264-3060 (Toll-Free 1-888-805-3389)
86

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Rocky Flats Site)

Janele Horner-Zarate, Office Manager

8758 Wolff Court, Suite 101

Westminster, CO 80031

720-540-4977 (Toll-Free 1-866-540-4977)

denver.center@rrohio.com

(Espanola Site)

Karen Martinez, Office Manager

412 Paseo De Onate, Suite D

Espanola, NM 87532

505-747-6766 (Toll-Free 1-866-272-3622)

espanola.center@rrohio.com

Region IX/X — Pacific

(Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho,

Nevada, Oregon, Washington)

Regional Office (San Francisco)

Sharon Tyler, Regional Director

U.S. Department of Labor, OWCP

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-100

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-625-7575

San Francisco FECA District Office

Andy Tharp, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-300

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-625-7500

San Francisco Longshore District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

90 Seventh Street, Suite 15-100

San Francisco, CA 94103-6716

415-625-7669

Long Beach Longshore District Office

Eric Richardson, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

401 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 720

Long Beach, CA 90802

562-980-3577

Honolulu Longshore Sub-District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 5-135

Post Office Box 50209

Honolulu, HI 96850

808-541-1983

Seattle FECA District Office

Marcus Tapia, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 650

Seattle, WA 98101-3212

206-398-8100

Seattle Longshore District Office

Karen Staats, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 620

Seattle, WA 98101-3212

206-398-8255

Seattle Energy District Office

Joyce Vail, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

719 2nd Avenue, Suite 601

Seattle, WA 98104

206-373-6750 (Toll-Free 1-888-805-3401)
87

Office Directory

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Idaho Falls Site) 

Steve Beehler, Office Manager

Exchange Plaza

1820 East 17th Street, Suite 375

Idaho Falls, ID 83404

208-523-0158 (Toll-Free 1-800-861-8608)

idaho.center@rrohio.com

(Las Vegas Site)

Joe Krachenfels, Office Manager

Flamingo Executive Park

1050 East Flamingo Road, Suite W-156

Las Vegas, NV 89119

702-697-0841 (Toll-Free 1-866-697-0841)

vegas.center@rrohio.com

(Hanford Site)

Steve Beehler, Office Manager

303 Bradley Blvd., Ste. 104

Richland, WA 99352

509-946-3333 (Toll-Free 1-888-654-0014)

hanford.center@rrohio.com

(California Site)

Joe Krachenfels, Office Manager

2600 Kitty Hawk Road, Suite 101

Livermore, CA 94551

925-606-6302 (Toll-Free 1-866-606-6302)

california.center@rrohio.com

National Operations Office

(District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia)

Barbara Williames, 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

Material contained in this publication is in 

the public domain and may be reproduced, 

fully or partially, without permission of the 

Federal Government. Source credit is 

requested but is not required. Permission is 

required only to reproduce any copyrighted 

material contained herein.

This material will be made available to 

individuals upon request.

(202)693-0031

Internet address: 

www.dol.gov/owcp