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 2O11

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Annual Report to Congress FY 2OO9



Page

Director’s Message 2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 5

Black Lung Benefits Act 17

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act 31

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 45

Appendix 61

Office Directory 86

Contents
2

Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 was another 

successful year for the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

four OWCP programs paid out over $4.1 

billion in compensation and benefits while 

meeting a large majority of their eleven key 

performance goals. FY 2009 was the last year 

during which OWCP was a component of 

the Employment Standards Administration, 

which was abolished in November 2009. This 

reorganization made OWCP a stand-alone 

agency reporting directly to the Secretary of 

Labor, reflecting the growing salience and 

complexity of our mission.

The Federal Employees’ Compensation 

(FEC) program achieved all of its goals under 

the Safety, Health, and Return-to-Employment 

(SHARE) initiative in its sixth and final year 

of operation. SHARE goals met included the 

continuing overall reduction of lost production 

day rates and the timely filing of 80 percent 

of non-Postal agency injury cases. Additional 

improvements were made to FEC’s integrated 

case management/payment system (iFECS) 

during the year, including enhancements to 

the Continuation of Pay/Return-to-Work 

website to assist nurses in their management 

of injury cases and improvements that have 

streamlined the FECA benefit payment 

processes. At the same time, FEC staff 

continued to achieve high rates of timeliness 

in all aspects of program operations. Nearly 

98 percent of traumatic injury claims were 

adjudicated within 45 days, and under the 

Quality Case Management (QCM) initiative 

the program has reduced time lost in serious 

new injury cases by 28 percent since QCM 

began sixteen years ago. Seriously injured 

workers are returning to the job nearly two 

months earlier on average as a result of the 

Director’s 

Message
3

coordinated efforts of OWCP, the employing 

agency, and the employee.

The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, 

the source of benefits under Part C of the Black 

Lung Benefits Act, was operated under the 

legislatively-mandated financial restructuring 

during FY 2009, allowing the Fund to not 

only cover all its expenditures during the 

year, but also meet the established goal for the 

initial year’s bond repayment of $342 million. 

The Black Lung program met both of its 

Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) 

goals by reducing average times to render a 

decision on a claim and keeping the program’s 

average medical treatment costs below the 

National Health Expenditure cost projections. 

In addition, nearly 82 percent of claims were 

resolved during the year with no pending 

request for further action. Notably, the 

average time for the district offices to render a 

decision was reduced to 201 days, a full four 

months faster than the 323 days it took in FY 

2005 when this goal was initiated. 

The Longshore program continued to 

successfully manage the large Defense Base 

Act (DBA) caseload, including the elevated 

levels generated by civilian contract service 

claims arising from Iraq and Afghanistan, with 

no added resources. Total DBA-covered injury 

and death cases reported during FY 2009 

reached 12,255, with nearly 52,000 total cases 

reported between FY 2003 and FY 2009. Along 

with its outstanding handling of this important 

and sensitive workload, Longshore staff 

continued to professionally manage its many 

other responsibilities under the Longshore 

Act, including monitoring industry benefit 

payments, dispute resolution, management 

of the second injury funds, vocational 

rehabilitation efforts, and performance of 

important compliance assistance and 

outreach services.

During its nine years of administering 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), 

OWCP has provided more than $5 billion in 

compensation and medical benefits to more 

than 54,000 claimants nationwide. In FY 

2009 alone, nearly $987 million in benefits 

under both Parts B and E of the Act were 

paid, affecting nearly 5,300 employees or 

their survivors under Part B and almost 4,900 

employees or survivors under Part E. The 

EEOICPA program achieved all three of its 

GPRA indicators during the year, reducing 

the average number of days to process initial 

claims by very large increments (from 164 to 

113 days (31 percent) under Part B and from 

284 to 159 days (44 percent) under Part E) 

and timely processing ninety-two percent of 

all final decisions, exceeding the 88 percent 

target. Also during FY 2009, the EEOICPA 

program maintained its outreach efforts. 

These activities during the year included 

town hall meetings, traveling resource centers, 

joint outreach task group meetings, and 

enhancements to its website and customer call 

handling systems. 

These positive outcomes for our 

customers and stakeholders were possible 

only through the dedicated service of OWCP’s 

eighteen-hundred employees. They assisted 

hundreds of thousands of injured workers 

and their families – one case at a time – and 

thereby made each of OWCP’s programs a 

functioning and reliable part of our nation’s 

safety net.

Gary A. Steinberg

Acting 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 
6

FECA also provides coverage to Peace Corps and VISTA volunteers, Federal petit 

and grand jurors, volunteer members of the Civil Air Patrol, Reserve Officer Training 

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

enforcement officers when injured under certain circumstances involving crimes 

against the United States.

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

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

and Federal agencies, while minimizing the human, social and financial costs of workrelated 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) 2009, the FEC program 

provided 253,000 workers and survivors over 

$2.7 billion in benefits for work-related injuries, 

illnesses, or deaths. Of these benefit payments, 

over $1.7 billion were for wage-loss compensation, 

$847 million for medical and rehabilitation 

services, and $138 million for death benefit 

payments to surviving dependents.

The FECA is the exclusive remedy 

by which Federal employees may obtain 

disability, medical, and/or survivor benefits 

from the Federal government for workplace 

injuries. Decisions for or against the payment 

of benefits may be appealed to the Employees’ 

Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB), an 

independent body in the Department of Labor 

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

program district offices around the country.

Funding

Benefits are paid from the Employees’ 

Compensation Fund. Agencies are billed each 

August for benefits paid for their employees from 

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

Postal Service (USPS) and non-appropriated fund 

agencies, include those chargeback costs in their 

next annual appropriation request to Congress. 
7

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

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.

Expenses for a small number of cases 

are not charged back to employing agencies, but 

also are covered by the DOL appropriation. For 

FY 2009, these non-chargeback expenses were 

approximately $43.2 million. Non-chargeable 

costs are attributable to injuries that occurred 

before December 1, 1960, when the chargeback 

system was enacted, to employees of agencies 

that are no longer in existence, or to injuries which 

have FECA coverage under various “Fringe Acts” 

such as the Contract Marine Observers Act, Law 

Enforcement Officers Act, and the War Hazards 

Compensation Act (WHCA), that did not 

contain mechanisms for billing employers. War 

Hazards payouts were higher in FY 2009 as the 

increased involvement of contractor staff in Iraq 

and Afghanistan resulted in a growing volume 

of claims under the Defense Base Act, leading to 

reimbursement requests under the WHCA for 

injuries and deaths caused by hostile action.

For FY 2009, administrative expenditures 

for the FEC program totaled $155.3 million. Of 

this amount, $142.2 million, approximately 4.9 

percent of total program 

costs, were direct 

appropriations to the 

DOL’s Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs 

(OWCP), including $90.0 

million in salaries and 

expenses and $52.1 million 

in “fair share” expenditures 

out of the FECA Special 

Benefits account. These 

latter funds are specifically earmarked for OWCP 

capital investments for the development and 

operation of automated data management and 

operations support systems, periodic roll case 

management, and benefit oversight. Another 

$13.2 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 2009, the Division of Federal Employees’ 

Compensation (DFEC) achieved three of its 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 42 days for 

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

reducing lost days to 35.8.

Benefit Outlays 

Under FECA FY 2009

TOTAL BENEFITS: $2,733 MILLION*

Long Term Disability (Wage-Loss) 51.1% $1,396 Million

Medical Benefits 31.0% $ 847 Million

Temporary Disability (Wage-Loss) 12.9% $ 352 Million

Death Benefits 5.0% $ 138 Million

*Actual Obligations
8

The average LPD for U.S. Postal Service cases was 

147.1 days, higher than DFEC’s FY 2009 target of 

139 days.

Through use of Periodic Roll Management, DFEC 

produced $14 million in first-year savings, falling 

short of its target of $15 million.

The program achieved a rate of increase of 

6.4 percent in per-case medical costs in FECA 

compared to an increase of 7.6 percent for 

nationwide health care costs.

Targets were met by DFEC in five key 

communication performance areas: access to 

Claimant Query System; average caller wait times; 

average callback response times; calls responded 

to on same day; and call handling quality.

Safety, Health, and Return-toEmployment Initiative

The Safety, Health and Return-to-Employment 

(SHARE) Initiative for Federal Executive Branch 

agencies was initially established in 2004 to run 

through FY 2006. The Department of Labor 

was designated to lead the Initiative with the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

and the OWCP having the responsibility for 

administering and monitoring program efforts.

In FY 2006, SHARE was extended for another 

three years.

The four SHARE goals for FY 2009 were:

Reduce total case rates for injuries and illnesses by 

at least three percent.

Reduce case rates for lost time injuries and 

illnesses by at least three percent.

Increase the timely filing of injury and illness 

notices by at least five percent.

Reduce rates of lost production days due to 

injuries and illnesses by at least one percent.

OWCP’s goal-setting methodology 

remained essentially the same except for two 

modifications. Goals for timely filing of Notices 

of Injury were revised to set a minimum of at 

least a 66.5 percent timeliness rate. Goals for those 

agencies exceeding the minimum continued 

according to a formula at a five percent per year 

improvement, except that no agency’s goal was 

required to exceed 95 percent.

The lost production days (LPD) 

calculation was modified in FY 2006 to yield a 

more accurate compilation of lost days. Agencies 

with FY 2006 baseline LPDs at or below 15 days 

were charged with maintaining an LPD rate of 

15 or less. All other agencies had their progress 

measured against the formula-driven targets of 

reducing LPDs by one percent per year.

In FY 2009, the Federal government

as a whole (less the U.S. Postal Service) 

successfully achieved all four SHARE goals. Nine 

departments and independent agencies met 

each of the performance measures in FY 2009. 

OWCP continued to collaborate with agencies 

in achieving the timely injury notice and lost 

production days goals.

Timely filing of injury notices continued 

to improve. By filing 80.1 percent of their cases 

with OWCP within 14 days, non-Postal agencies 

far exceeded the FY 2009 minimum of 66.5 

percent. Performance has improved by more 

than 61 percent since the FY 2003 base year timely 

filing rate of 49.6 percent. The timely submission 

of claim forms enables OWCP to minimize 

interruptions of income and to promptly pay 

medical bills.
9

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

With non-Postal agencies 

averaging 35.8 lost days per 100 employees 

versus a goal of 42 lost days, the SHARE 

goal for LPDs was substantially exceeded 

once again in FY 2009. The achievement of 

this difficult goal in FY 2009 demonstrates 

that agencies are focusing on the long-term 

changes needed to improve their disability 

case management programs, and that FEC 

staff are managing long-term QCM cases 

very effectively to speed return to work.

iFECS

Early in FY 2009 the Continuation of 

Pay/Return to Work (COP/RTW) website was 

released into production. The project developed a 

website for users that provides:

COP Nurses with necessary details to make 

contact with the claimant;

A capability for the COP Nurses to transmit 

current claimant information and status back 

to the district office, and close the case when 

appropriate; and

A secure mechanism for these tasks in order to 

protect Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

In mid-FY 2009 DFEC delivered the 

substantial CA-7 enhancement project in order to 

improve the turn-around times to process CA-7 

compensation claims and to streamline the benefit 

payment process. The project encompassed 

the enhancements of multiple applications 

within DFEC’s integrated Federal Employees’ 

Compensation System (iFECS) to improve three 

major business needs:

Increasing the timeliness of compensation 

payments;

Streamlining the adjudicatory and payment 

processes within iFECS; and

Capturing accurate performance metrics related 

to claims examiner actions and the timeliness of 

compensation payments.

In late FY 2009 DFEC initiated the Fair 

Share modernization initiative which consisted of 

three distinct areas of functionality: An Integrated 

Voice Response (IVR) system; a forms processing 

system; and a consolidation of district office 

scanning and data entry.

IVR Improvements (O-ECS). An 

improvement to the present IVR system can 

automate the process of providing data from every 

call electronically. By providing data through the 

means of telephony, the CA-110 (DFEC call record 

form) would be generated upon the completion 

of all calls within the system. O-ECS will provide 

monitoring and reporting capabilities for tracking 

workforce performance and supporting workload 

projections. Both of these functions are built 

within the system for seamless integration and 

performance improvements.
10

Web Portal Forms Processing (E-COMP).

With E-COMP, DFEC proposes to supplement 

the current EDI-based system with a web-based 

system. This proposed system will enable all 

Federal employers and claimants to “e-file” 

DFEC forms and claims information at minimal/

negligible costs to the agencies. E-COMP will 

allow users to select, initiate, complete, approve 

and submit forms online through an interactive 

internet environment.

Centralization of Case-Create/Imaging (3CI).

On average, over 11,000 new cases are created for 

DFEC claimants each month. In December 2008 

alone, 526,358 documents were imaged to support 

those cases and others in progress. DFEC has 

recognized a potential for cost savings through 

centralization of both these functions. Through 

the 3CI enhancement, DFEC seeks to reduce 

administrative costs for these functions while 

improving productivity, accuracy and consistency 

of output. Analysis has shown that consolidation 

will not only lower costs but also improve DFEC 

customer services and maximize controls for 

closer supervision of the case creation operations.

Case Adjudication and 

Management

Approximately 130,000 new injury and illness 

claims were filed under FECA in FY 2009. Eightyseven 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, 97.6 percent were 

adjudicated within 45 days of the day OWCP 

received notice of the injury. In FY 2009, 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, 

94.8 percent were adjudicated within 90 days. 

Of the more complex non-traumatic cases, 88.1 

percent were adjudicated within 180 days.

The FEC program has reduced time loss 

in new injury cases by nearly 28 percent under its 

Quality Case Management (QCM) program since 

QCM was implemented in FY 1993. Under QCM 

every injury case with a wage-loss claim filed and 

no return-to-work date is reviewed for assignment 

to an early intervention nurse contracted by the 

FEC program. 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 2009, 7,692 injured Federal 

employees were returned to work as a result of 

early nurse intervention. Additionally, vocational 

rehabilitation counselors arranged training and 

successfully placed 555 injured workers into 

non-Federal employment. The average length 

of disability in QCM cases (lost production days 

within the first year from the date FECA wage-loss 

began) was reduced to 142 days in FY 2009, down 

from the 145 days in FY 2008.
11

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

The FEC program continued to dedicate 

resources to the thorough review of long-term 

disability cases. As part of that review, Periodic 

Roll Management (PRM) staff arranges second 

opinion medical examinations to reassess changes 

in medical condition and fitness for work and 

recommends referral to vocational rehabilitation 

and placement assistance with a goal of 

reemploying injured workers. Of the cases that 

were screened in FY 2009, the disability in 1,280 

cases had either resolved or lessened to the point 

that return to work was possible. Adjustments 

or termination of benefits resulting from the 

changes in these cases produced $14 million in 

compensation benefit savings. 

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued 

to achieve improvements in operating efficiencies. 

During FY 2009, DFEC avoided $77 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 2009, the bill processing system 

was enhanced to include Multiple Surgeries and 

Maximum Units pricing. The multiple surgeries 

enhancements allow the automated selection 

of the primary surgical procedure code from 

multiple codes billed to ensure appropriate pricing 

cutback. Maximum units enhancements enforce 

a maximum units allowed for procedures based 

on service description and complexity to ensure 

proper payment.

In FY 2009, the medical bill processing 

vendor processed 4.9 million bills and handled 

782,242 telephone calls, meeting FECA 

communication goals. Authorizations for 

treatment were processed in an average of 1.1 

work days and 99.8 percent of bills were processed 

in 28 days. Enrollment of 16,271 new providers 

brought the total of enrolled providers to 203,952.

FECA Benefits Charged To

Employing Agencies

CHARGEBACK YEAR 2009

Chargeback Total: $2,669 Million

Postal Service $1,055 Million

Defense $ 616 Million*

Veterans Affairs $ 180 Million

Homeland Security $ 165 Million

Justice $ 105 Million

Transportation $ 99 Million

Agriculture $ 74 Million

All Other $ 376 Million

*Defense Includes Navy ($240M), Army ($182M), Air Force ($131M), and 

Dept. of Defense ($63M)

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

Hearings and Review

Individuals who disagree with an Office formal 

decision on a claim may exercise their appeal 

rights by requesting an oral hearing or a review 

of the written record from the Branch of Hearings 

and Review. In FY 2009, the Branch received a 

total of 6,438 incoming requests for reviews of the 

written record and oral hearings, and issued a total 

of 7,085 decisions.

In FY 2009, customer service and 

turnaround times improved in all of the measured 

areas. The period of time between receipt of a case 

file and the issuance of a remand or reversal before 

a hearing decreased from an average of 67 days 

in FY 2008 to 64 days in FY 2009. For those case 

files where a hearing was held, the time period for 

issuance of a decision decreased from an average 

of 193 days in FY 2008 to 190 days in FY 2009. 

For appeals initiated from a review of the written 

record, the time period for issuance of a decision 

decreased from an average of 93 days in FY 2008 

to 90 days in FY 2009.

In the interest of improving appeals 

processing times, the Branch continues to convert 

hearing requests originating in geographical areas 

less traveled to telephone hearings. In FY 2009, 

the branch continued to hold proceedings via 

video teleconferencing to increase productivity 

associated with hearings. The Branch found that 

video teleconferencing expedited the hearing 

process by avoiding unnecessary wait times in 

cities where a full docket was not available.

Legislative Reform

DFEC continues to pursue changes to the Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act that would 

enhance incentives for injured employees to 

return to work; address retirement equity issues; 

and update and make other benefit changes. 

Specifically, the reform proposal includes the 

following:

Convert compensation for new injuries or new 

claims for disability to a lower benefit at the Social 

Security retirement age.

Move the 3-day waiting period during which an 

injured worker is not entitled to compensation to 

the point immediately after an injury.

Change the way that schedule awards are paid 

to allow uniform lump sum payments to Federal 

employees eligible for such awards, and make 

such payments earlier. 

Eliminate augmented compensation for 

dependents but raise the basic benefit level for all 

claimants.

Allow OWCP to recover the costs paid by 

responsible third parties to FECA beneficiaries 

during the continuation of pay period.

Increase benefit levels for funeral expenses from 

$1,000 to $6,000. 

Increase benefit levels for disfigurement resulting 

from work injury, and 

Identify unreported work earnings and receipt of 

Federal Employees Retirement System retirement 

benefits through regular database matching with 

the Social Security Administration.
13

FECA Program Evaluation

A process evaluation of the FECA Continuation 

of Pay (COP) Nurse Program, “Improved Early 

Disability Management” (SRA International, 

Inc., February 2008), was conducted in FY 2008. 

In response to the findings from this study, in FY 

2009 DFEC developed (1) an electronic capability 

for employing agencies to report when an injured 

worker has returned to work; (2) a Web portal for 

COP nurses to transmit case status reports; and (3) 

a standardized nurse case evaluation report.

Early in FY 2009, the COP Return to Work 

website was released for production. This new 

website provided a secure mechanism for the 

protection of PII while simultaneously providing 

the COP nurse with the information needed to 

expedite contact with the claimant and a vehicle 

to transmit information back to the district office. 

Planning for the next phase of the project began 

later in the year. The COP/RTW Phase II project 

will transition the functionality of the website to 

an iFECS Delphi module and integrate the COP 

operations more thoroughly with other iFECS 

applications. COP data will be better propagated 

throughout iFECS and more case data will be 

accessible to COP nurses. Additionally, data input 

by the COP Nurse will be available to the staff 

nurse and claims examiner, and selected data 

will be made available to the claimant’s agency 

and supervisor via changes to the AQS web 

application.

An evaluation of the FECA Program, 

“Dual Tracking of DFEC Quality Case 

Management Nurse and Vocational Rehabilitation 

Processes” (SRA International, Inc.), was 

conducted in FY 2009. The purpose of the 

evaluation was to provide recommendations 

for the design of an improved program for 

providing Quality Case Management (QCM) 

nurse intervention and vocational rehabilitation 

services to injured Federal workers and to 

strengthen the integration of these services. The 

recommendations centered on areas such as 

earlier intervention by nurses, claims examiners 

and rehabilitation specialists; effective and efficient 

communication to drive teamwork among all 

stakeholders in the FECA program; broadening 

timely work hardening and return-to-work 

options; system enhancements; and changes to 

current reporting mechanisms to better organize 

and track information.

In conjunction with the prior evaluation, 

the information is being used to improve the 

current program; adopt effective practices; 

enhance case management processes; and assist 

employing agencies with the creation of reemployment opportunities. Best practices, new 

approaches, and efficiency recommendations 

resulting from the performance studies should 

also improve agency and injured worker customer 

satisfaction while simultaneously supporting the 

objective to reduce lost production days.

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act
14

Services to Claimants and 

Beneficiaries

Quality customer service and customer 

satisfaction are key components of DFEC’s 

mission and “Pledge to Our Customers.” During 

FY 2009, over 1.2 million calls were received by the 

DFEC district offices, the majority of which were 

handled by Customer Service Representatives 

(CSRs) in the 12 district office call centers. Since 

2003, average caller wait times have been reduced 

by nearly two-thirds; turnaround time to caller 

inquiries has been reduced by more than 70 

percent; and response effectiveness has improved 

by nearly 40 percent. During FY 2009, calls were 

answered in an average of 1.3 minutes, which is 

well below the goal of three minutes. 

To help ensure quality and to identify 

areas where additional CSR training is needed, 

silent monitoring of calls to the district office 

phone banks continued during the fiscal year. 

Communications Specialists on DFEC’s staff 

listen to both sides of a conversation and, using 

a standardized Quality Monitoring scorecard, 

document the CSRs’ performance. The results 

of quality silent monitoring coupled with local 

telephone survey results show that 98.5 percent of 

callers received courteous service in FY 2009. The 

use of clear and understandable language was 

reported in 98.8 percent of calls, and 97.6 percent of 

calls met knowledge and accuracy standards. The 

goal of 95 percent was exceeded in each of these 

quality categories. 

During FY 2009, 75 percent of calls to the 

district offices were responded to on the same day 

they were received, exceeding the goal by two 

percent. The average response time for all calls in 

FY 2009 was less than one day (0.84 days), which 

represents the most significant customer service 

improvement. Ninety-seven percent of all calls 

were responded to in two days or less.
15

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act

FY 2008 FY 2009

Number of Employees 

(FTE Staffing Used) 892 883

Administrative Expenditures 1 $142.7 M $142.2 M

Cases Created 134,013 129,690

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 19,187 18,808

Total Compensation and Benefits 

(Actual Obligations) 2 $2,657.6 M $2,732.6 M

Number of Medical Bills Processed 5,182,096 4,926,575

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

expenditures of $53.2 million in FY 2008 and $52.1 million in FY 2009, respectively.

2 Compensation, medical, and survivor benefits. 

17

Black Lung Benefits Act

Introduction

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

thirty-sixth year administering Part C of the Black Lung program in 2009. The 

initial Black Lung benefits program was enacted as part of the Coal Mine Health 
18

and Safety Act of 1969 (the Act), which marked its 40th anniversary during the year. 

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 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 1997, 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.

At the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, administration of the Black Lung Part C 

program was 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 

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

Responsibilities Act placed the administration of both programs with DOL.
19

Black Lung Benefits 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 FY 2009, monthly and retroactive benefit 

payments totaled $221.3 million.

The Part C program also provides both 

diagnostic and medical treatment services for 

totally disabling pneumoconiosis. Diagnostic 

testing is provided for all miner-claimants to 

determine the presence or absence of black lung 

disease and the degree of associated disability. 

These tests include a chest x-ray, pulmonary 

function study, arterial blood gas study, and a 

physical examination. Medical coverage for 

treatment of black lung disease and directly related 

conditions is provided for miner-beneficiaries. 

This coverage includes prescription drugs, office 

visits, and hospitalizations. Also provided, with 

prior approval, are durable medical equipment 

(primarily home oxygen), outpatient pulmonary 

rehabilitation therapy, and home nursing visits.

Medical expenditures under the Black 

Lung Part C program during FY 2009 were $33.7 

million. This includes payments of $3.7 million 

for diagnostic services, $28.6 million for medical 

treatment, and $1.4 million in reimbursements to 

the United Mine Workers of America Health and 

Retirement Funds for the cost of treating Black 

Lung beneficiaries. Approximately 207,000 bills 

were processed during the year.

Total Black Lung Part C program 

expenditures for all benefits in FY 2009 were $255.0 

million, a decrease of $18.2 million from FY 2008. 

In FY 2009, benefits were provided from the Trust 

Fund to approximately 28,000 beneficiaries each 

month. 

In addition to Trust Fund expenditures, 

self-insured mine operators and insurance 

companies paid approximately $39 million to 

over 4,500 miners and survivors. An estimated 

$7.8 million was also paid in medical treatment 

benefits, for a total cost to the industry of $46.8 

million during FY 2009.

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 
20

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, 2009, there were 1,140 

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 72 fee petitions and paid 

approximately $0.5 million in attorneys’ fees from 

the Trust Fund.

In FY 2009, 1,000 claims were forwarded 

for formal hearings before the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and 516 

claims were forwarded on appeal to the Benefits 

Review Board (BRB). At the end of FY 2009, the 

OALJ had 1,681 claims pending while 476 were 

pending before the BRB.

In the Black Lung Part B program, nearly 

29,000 active beneficiaries (with more than 2,600 

dependents) were receiving nearly $19 million in 

monthly cash benefits as of September 30, 2009. 

Part B benefits in FY 2009 totaled nearly $238 

million. DCMWC completed 5,000 maintenance 

actions on Part B claims during the year, on 

average less than one week from notification.

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 2009, the 

Trust Fund received a total of $644.9 million in tax 

revenues. An additional $9.2 million was collected 

from RMOs in interim benefits, fines, penalties, 

and interest. Total receipts of the Trust Fund in FY 
21

Black Lung Benefits Act

2009 were nearly $7.2 billion, including $6.5 billion 

in a one-time appropriation from the Department 

of the Treasury.

Total Trust Fund disbursements 

during FY 2009 were almost $7.2 billion. These 

expenditures included $255.0 million for income 

and medical benefits, $6.5 billion to the Treasury 

for debt retirement, $57.7 million to administer the 

program ($32.3 million in OWCP direct costs and 

$25.4 million for legal adjudication and various 

financial management and investigative support 

provided by the Office of the Solicitor, the OALJ, 

the BRB, Office of the Inspector General, and the 

Department of the Treasury), and $341.9 million in 

bond payments.

In 1981, the Black Lung Benefits Revenue 

provisions temporarily increased the previous 

excise tax to $1.00 per ton for underground coal 

and $0.50 per ton on surface mined coal, with a 

cap of four percent of sales price. In 1986, under 

the Comprehensive Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1985, excise tax rates were increased again by 10 

percent. The rates for underground and surface 

mined coal were raised to $1.10 and $0.55 per 

ton respectively, and the cap was increased to 4.4 

percent of the sales price. Under the law in effect 

at the end of FY 2009, these tax rates will remain 

until December 31, 2018, after which the rates will 

revert to their original levels of $0.50 underground, 

$0.25 surface, and a limit of two percent of sales 

price.

Central Medical Bill Processing

OWCP’s medical bill processing service continued 

to achieve improvements in operating efficiency 

and effectiveness. Timely and accurate medical bill 

processing is a critical element in administration 

of the Black Lung Program. During FY 2009, 

DCMWC avoided $676,000 in medical costs due 

to further improvements in the editing of bills.

In FY 2009, the vendor processed 207,000 

Black Lung bills. A total of 99.5 percent of bills 

were processed within 28 days. The number of 

telephone calls handled was 32,368. Enrollment of 

2,239 new providers brought the total of enrolled 

providers to 110,007.

Legislative Action to Address 

Trust Fund Insolvency

The 1977 Amendments to the Act established a 

Trust Fund that would pay benefits to miners 

who last worked prior to 1970, or in cases where 

no responsible mine operator could be identified. 

The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund is financed 

by excise taxes on coal produced and sold, 

recoveries from coal mine operators and insurers 

of previously-paid benefits, interest and penalties, 

and repayable advance from the Treasury. 

Because the Trust Fund was established at the 

same time the Reform Act liberalized eligibility 

for b enefits, and because retroactive benefits far 

exceeded the collection of excise taxes (which were 

not applicable retroactively), the Fund soon began 

to require advances from the Treasury.
22

These advances were made in the late 

1970’s and early 1980’s, when interest rates were 

high. Consequently, the Trust Fund continued to 

require advances for the purpose of debt servicing, 

even though excise tax receipts and benefits 

eventually stabilized. Despite a moratorium 

on interest from 1986 through 1990, and several 

extensions of the excise tax rates set in 1981, by 

the end of FY 2008 the Trust Fund was over $10 

billion in debt to the Treasury. After many years 

of legislative proposals to reduce this debt, the 

Congress addressed it as part of P.L. 110-343, the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 

enacted in FY 2009. The debt was restructured by 

a one-time allocation from the Treasury and the 

issuance of zero-coupon Treasury bonds at current 

interest rates. As a result, the Fund not only 

covered its expenditures during FY 2009, but also 

made two repayments to the Treasury totaling 

$342 million, meeting the established goal for the 

first year’s bond retirement.

Government Performance 

Results Act

In FY 2009, 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:

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 218 days.

By the end of FY 2009, the average time 

required to process a claim from the date of receipt 

to the date of the PDO had been reduced to 201 

days, slightly improved from the 205 days average 

in FY 2008.

The total number of new claims increased 

slightly (by 2.0 percent) from 4,270 in FY 2008 to 

4,354 in FY 2009. These claim numbers include 

survivor’s conversions that are automatically 

awarded. Conversion claims numbered 480 in 

FY 2008 and 444 in FY 2009. The total inventory of 

claims pending a PDO increased from 1,975 at the 

end of FY 2008 to 2,290 at the close of FY 2009.

The second GPRA goal for FY 2009 was 

also achieved. DCMWC adopted the National 

Health Expenditure Projection (NHEP) as a guide 

against which the program would:

Measure its medical treatment costs with a goal of 

keeping the average cost per miner below the level 

of inflation predicted by the NHEP.

Although the NHEP appeared to be a 

good model for the Black Lung program’s average 

expenditure growth during the study period 

and base year, recent experience has shown that 

the program’s per capita expenditures, while 
23

Black Lung Benefits Act

still below the NHEP’s long-range projections, 

are more volatile on an annual basis than the 

projections. Nevertheless, while DCMWC did 

not meet its goal in FY 2008, measures taken in 

FY 2009, including closer review of in-patient bills 

and adjustments in pharmacy reimbursements, 

enabled the program to meet the goal for FY 2009 

with an increase of 2.8 percent against the NHEP 

projection of 4.6 percent. Even as DCMWC 

considers alternative indices, it continues to take 

concrete steps to reduce costs without reducing 

services.

Although DCMWC no longer maintains 

its original GPRA goal of ensuring that 80 percent 

of claims have no requests for further action 

pending one year after receipt of the claim, it 

continues to monitor this figure. In FY 2009, 81.6 

percent of claims were resolved with no pending 

requests for further 

action. The Black Lung 

program will continue 

to work closely with 

both its stakeholder and 

authorized provider 

communities to ensure 

that delivery of services 

continues to improve 

and performance 

standards are met.

Black Lung Program Evaluation

In FY 2009 DCMWC completed its 

implementation of a number of efficiencies and 

best practices recommended by an independent 

study in 2007. Among the most important 

items, a task force was established to study and 

recommend new accountability review standards, 

including financial controls. Also, training for 

the national office and district office staffs was 

enhanced by the use of internet and remote access 

technology, while another workgroup met to 

study enhancements to the Automated Support 

Package that will enable staff to track and identify 

responsible coal mine operators more efficiently.

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. 

Management of SSA

Part B Black Lung Claims

FY 2009

Professional and Timely Claims Maintenance Services

Provided to Part B Claimants by DCMWC Included:

Completing 5,000 Maintenance Actions,

With Average Completion Time of Less

Than One Week from Notification

Managing the Expenditure of More Than

$238 Million in Benefits

DCMWC was Responsible for Nearly 29,000 Active Part B Cases
24

During FY 2009, DCMWC worked to 

successfully migrate the Production ASP database 

to a server in the National Office from the server in 

Lee Summit, Missouri. DCMWC implemented 

several enhancements to its ASP that improved 

user’s search capability and database integrity. In 

addition, the Division consolidated representative 

payee communications into a single new form.

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 2009 estimates by 

DOL’s Mine Safety and Health Administration, 

there were just over 2,000 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 

2009, 75 active companies were authorized by 

the Secretary of Labor to self-insure. These selfinsurance authorizations cover approximately 690 

subsidiaries and affiliated companies. 

The Responsible Operator (RO) Section 

staff in DCMWC’s national office is specifically 

assigned to record the existence of coal mine 

operators and their insurance status. The staff 

answers frequent written, telephone, and e-mail 

inquiries from operators and insurance carriers 

and evaluates requests for self-insurance.

 During FY 2009, the RO section sent form 

letters to 730 coal mine operators reminding 

them of their statutory requirement to insure 

and stay insured against their potential liability 

for black lung benefits. Of these, 594 were 

found to be insured, 70 were insured through 

a parent entity or not engaged in coal mining, 

and 30 were uninsured companies that required 

assistance. The remaining 36 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 2009, DCMWC received 

2,860 reports of new or renewed policies. 
25

Black Lung Benefits Act

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 2009, with District Directors 

and national office staff making a number of visits 

to clinics and individual physicians. At these site 

visits, DCMWC staff reviewed the physicians’ 

written evaluations of the medical information 

obtained during the complete pulmonary 

evaluations and made suggestions for improving 

and standardizing the evaluations and reports. 

DCMWC officials also met several times with 

physicians at state and national conferences of the 

National Coalition of Black Lung and Respiratory 

Disease Clinics to help improve reporting. During 

FY 2009, the program also focused on updating 

the list of approved diagnostic physicians by 

contacting many physicians in order to ensure 

that highly-qualified doctors were available to 

perform medical evaluations.

In FY 2009 the program continued its 

long-standing commitment to ensuring that 

payments to beneficiaries requiring assistance 

are properly utilized for their use and benefit. 

DCMWC continued to track district office actions 

in the appointment of representative payees and 

the monitoring of their expenditure of benefits, a 

process began in FY 2007. During FY 2009, over 

98 percent of representative payee appointments 

and expenditure reports were evaluated and acted 

on within thirty days. The program also finalized 

and implemented a new reporting procedure for 

representative payees that reduced paperwork for 

both payees and DCMWC staff and sustained the 

same high level of benefit monitoring.

Litigation

COURTS OF APPEAL

During FY 2009, the courts of appeals issued 

twenty-four decisions in cases arising under 

the BLBA. Thirty-eight new appeals were filed. 

The following summarizes the most significant 

appellate decisions:

Subsequent Claims; 20 C.F.R. 725.309.

Pneumoconiosis may be both latent and 

progressive. For that reason, the BLBA permits a 

miner whose claim is denied to file another claim 

if his condition changes. In RAG American Coal 

Co. v. Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 576 

F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2009), the miner’s first claim was 

denied in part because the ALJ found that the 

miner’s pulmonary impairment was unrelated to 

coal dust exposure. The miner later filed another 

claim and prevailed. The Seventh Circuit rejected 

the employer’s assertion that the miner’s second 

claim should be denied because the miner was 

improperly re-litigating his denied first claim. 

Recognizing that pneumoconiosis may remain 

hidden and progress in severity over time, the 

court held that the earlier finding that the miner’s 

impairment was unrelated to coal dust exposure 

does not preclude a finding in the second claim 

that the miner now has pneumoconiosis that 

contributes to his disability. The court also held 
26

that the finding of pneumoconiosis may be based 

on a new opinion of a doctor who diagnosed 

pneumoconiosis in the prior claim.

Due Process. In Energy West Mining Co. v. Oliver, 

555 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2009), the Tenth Circuit 

rejected the responsible coal mine operator’s 

assertion that it was denied due process and thus 

should be relieved of liability for the claim. The 

miner had originally filed for benefits in 1980. 

That claim was denied and the file eventually 

destroyed pursuant to the Department’s recordsretention policy. The miner continued to work 

until 1993 and later filed a second, successful claim 

in 2002. The operator argued that the destruction 

of the first claim file prevented it from mounting 

a meaningful defense to the second claim. 

Noting that “[t]he Constitution is concerned with 

procedural outrages, not procedural glitches,” the 

court held that the operator failed to demonstrate 

that the file’s destruction constituted deliberate 

misconduct or prevented it from fully defending 

its interests. Consequently, the court concluded 

that it was not “fundamentally unfair to make 

the (operator) live with the outcome of [the] 

proceeding[.]”

Statute of Limitations; 30 U.S.C. 932(f)(1). The 

BLBA provides that a claim for benefits must be 

filed within three years of a medical determination 

of total disability due to pneumoconiosis that 

has been communicated to the miner. Under the 

program regulations, each claim for benefits is 

presumed to be timely filed. In Arch of Kentucky, 

Inc. v. Hatfield, 556 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2009), the 

responsible operator argued that the miner’s 

subsequent claim for benefits was untimely 

because he had received a diagnosis of totally 

disabling pneumoconiosis, which was rendered 

more than three years earlier, in connection with 

his prior claim. The Sixth Circuit rejected this 

argument, holding that a medical determination 

of totally disabling pneumoconiosis that is 

generated in connection with a denied claim 

is a misdiagnosis and does not start the threeyear limitations period. The court noted that its 

interpretation both encourages miners to seek 

early medical treatment and does not constrain a 

miner’s ability to file a later claim if his condition 

deteriorates.

Death Due to Pneumoconiosis; 20 C.F.R. 718.205. 

A miner’s survivor is entitled to benefits if she 

establishes that coal workers’ pneumoconiosis 

caused or contributed to the miner’s death. 

Under the program regulations, pneumoconiosis 

contributes to a miner’s death if it hastens 

death in any tangible way. In Hill v. Director, 

OWCP, 562 F.3d 264 (3d Cir. 2009), the Third 

Circuit addressed several issues regarding the 

necessary medical proof for establishing death 

due to pneumoconiosis. The court held that if the 

miner has been found to have pneumoconiosis, 

a physician’s opinion that the miner’s lung 
27

Black Lung Benefits Act

condition contributed to death may be legally 

sufficient to establish entitlement even if the doctor 

does not specifically identify the lung condition 

as pneumoconiosis; that a doctor’s explanation 

for how pneumoconiosis contributed to death 

may be credible even if phrased in conditional 

or hypothetical terms; and that the absence of 

medical records for the period immediately 

before the miner’s death does not invalidate 

an otherwise credible medical opinion that the 

miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis.

Medical Evaluation Provided by DOL; 30 

U.S.C. 923(b). Section 413(b) of the Act requires 

the Department to provide each miner/claimant 

with the opportunity to substantiate his claim by 

means of a complete pulmonary evaluation. In 

Greene v. King James Coal Mining, Inc., 575 F.3d 628 

(6th Cir. 2009), the Sixth Circuit addressed the 

amount of reasoning and documentation that a 

medical report must contain in order to meet the 

Department’s statutory obligation. The court held 

that the Department’s duty is met if the miner 

is provided an evaluation report that includes 

all medical tests and that links the physician’s 

conclusion on all essential elements of entitlement 

to the results of those tests. The court also noted 

that an opinion is not deficient simply because it 

lacks extensive detail or ultimately fails to carry the 

miner’s burden of proof when weighed against 

contrary evidence. 

BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD

During FY 2009, the Benefits Review Board 

issued 624 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:

Statute of Limitations. The Act provides that a 

claim for benefits must be filed within three years 

of a medical determination of total disability due 

to pneumoconiosis that has been communicated 

to the miner. Under the program regulations, 

each claim for benefits is presumed to be timely 

filed. Consistent with the holdings of three United 

States Courts of Appeals, and with the position 

of the Director, the Board held that the limitations 

provision applies to all claims filed by a miner and 

that a medical determination of totally disabling 

pneumoconiosis that predates the denial of a 

prior claim is a misdiagnosis that does not trigger 

the running of the limitations period for filing a 

subsequent claim. J.O. v. Helen Mining Co., 24 BLR 

1-117 (2009).

Medical Evaluation Provided by DOL. Section 

413(b) of the Act requires the Department 

to provide each miner/claimant with the 

opportunity to substantiate his claim by means 

of a complete pulmonary evaluation. In this case, 

the ALJ concluded, prior to the hearing, that the 

413(b) examination was defective and remanded 

the claim to the district director. At the urging of 

the Director, the Board rejected the responsible 

coal mine operator’s argument that the ALJ was 

without authority to issue the order and could 

not remand to cure the 413(b) defect until after a 
28

hearing. The Board held that the 

program regulations authorize 

an ALJ to order such a remand at 

any time prior to a hearing. The 

Board also rejected the operator’s 

argument that liability for the 

claim should transfer to the 

Black Lung Disability Trust Fund 

because the remand violated its 

due process rights. The Board 

reasoned that the operator 

failed to show how remand to 

correct a flawed medical report 

prior to the hearing denied it 

a meaningful opportunity to 

defend its interests. R.G.B. v. 

Southern Ohio Coal Co., 24 BLR 

1-129 (2009).
29

Black Lung Benefits Act 

Part C 1 Part B 2

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 179 171 16 17

OWCP Administrative Expenditures 3 $ 32.4 M $ 31.9 M $ 5.4 M $ 5.2 M

Total Compensation and Benefit Payments 4 $273.2 M $255.0 M $262.3 M $237.8 M

Beneficiaries in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year 

 Monthly 28,597 26,080 32,732 28,911

 Medical Benefits Only 1,924 1,571 N/A N/A

Responsible Coal Mine Operator Beneficiaries 

in Pay Status at End of Fiscal Year

 Monthly 4,616 4,415 N/A N/A

 Medical Benefits Only 662 563 N/A N/A

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

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

3 Part C administrative expenditures exclude DOL and Department of Treasury support costs of $25.9 million in FY 2008 and $25.8 million in FY 2009, 

respectively. Also excludes interest on the Trust Fund debt.

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

by the Trust Fund on an interim basis, refunds for OWCP administrative costs paid, and other miscellaneous reimbursements). Excluded are

self-insured mine operator and insurance carrier payments that totaled approximately $48.6 million in FY 2008 and $46.8 million in FY 2009, respectively.

Black Lung Benefits Act

31

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 
32

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

injured during their employment or who contract an occupational disease related 

to employment. Survivor benefits also are provided if the work-related injury or 

disease causes the employee’s death. These benefits are paid directly by an authorized 

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

circumstances, by an industry-financed Special Fund.

In addition, LHWCA covers certain other employees through the following 

extensions to the Act:

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

LHWCA to employees working outside the continental United States under certain 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

development of natural resources.

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

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

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

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

injuries prior to that date.

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

Compensation Act, provided coverage to certain maritime employees injured while 

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

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

244 U.S. 205 (1917)).
33

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Operations

Disability compensation and medical benefits 

paid by insurers and self-insurers under LHWCA 

and its extensions totaled $844.7 million in 

Calendar Year (CY) 2008, an 8.0 percent increase 

compared to CY 2007.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, total DOL 

expenditures for program operations and the 

administration of LHWCA and its extensions 

were $24.4 million, of which $10.7 million were 

the direct costs of OWCP. The remaining $13.7 

million represent the cost of legal, audit, and 

investigative support provided by the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), the BRB, 

the Office of the Solicitor, and the Office of the 

Inspector General. 

At year’s end, the Division of Longshore 

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation (DLHWC) 

employed 98 people in the national office and 11 

district offices.

During FY 2009, approximately 530 selfinsured employers and insurance carriers reported 

28,952 lost-time injuries under the LHWCA. At 

year’s end, 14,450 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 2009. Injuries 

occurring under DBA are reported to DLHWC 

District Offices determined by the geographic 

location of the injury occurrence. To address 

the high volume of DBA cases and reduce 

the anticipated growth in claims backlogs, the 

Longshore program continued to distribute the 

Middle East DBA workload among all its district 

offices in FY 2009. During the year, a total of 

12,255 cases of injury and death were reported 

under DBA.

Longshore Special Fund

The Special Fund under the LHWCA was 

established in the Treasury of the United 

States pursuant to section 44 of the Act and is 

administered by the national office of DLHWC. 

Proceeds of the fund are used for payments 

under section 10(h) of the LHWCA for annual 

adjustments in compensation for permanent 

total disability or death that occurred prior to the 

effective date of the 1972 amendments, under 
34

section 8(f) for second injury claims, under section 

18(b) for cases involving employer insolvency, 

under sections 39(c) and 8(g) for providing 

rehabilitation assistance to persons covered under 

the LHWCA, and under section 7(e) to pay the 

cost of medical examinations.

The Special Fund is financed through 

fines and penalties levied under the LHWCA; 

$5,000 payments by employers for each instance 

in which a covered worker dies and when 

it is determined that there are no survivors 

eligible for benefits; interest payments on Fund 

investments; and payment of annual assessments 

by authorized insurance carriers and self-insurers. 

Fines, penalties, and death benefit levies constitute 

a small portion of the total amount paid into the 

Special Fund each year. The largest single source 

of money for the fund is the annual assessment.

A separate fund under the DCCA is also 

administered by OWCP. Payments to and from 

this fund apply only to the DCCA.

The LHWCA Special Fund paid $132.7 

million in benefits in FY 2009, of which $121.2 

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

FY 2009 expenditures from the DCCA Special 

Fund totaled $10.1 million, of which $9.2 million 

was for second injury cases.

Government Performance 

Results Act

In FY 2009, DLHWC measured the following 

indicator under the DOL strategic goal to 

“minimize the human, social, and financial impact 

of work-related injuries for workers and their 

families”: 

For average time required to resolve disputed 

issues in LHWCA program contested cases, the 

FY 2009 target is 242 days..

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 2009, the district offices conducted 

3,221 informal conferences that were designed to 

establish the facts in each case, define the disputed 

issues and the positions of the parties in respect 

to those issues, and encourage their voluntary 

resolution by means of agreement and/or 

compromise.

In FY 2009, disputed issues covered by 

this measure were resolved in an average of 251 

days, or nine days over the target of 242 days. 

The program’s failure to meet the target was in 

large part due to the complexities of injury and 

death cases in connection with the conflicts in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. DBA claims present unique 

challenges and require more time and claims 

expertise to process than general Longshore 

claims. Claims development and documentation 

are more complicated and time-consuming, 

processing is more labor-intensive, response times 
35

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

from overseas are extended, medical issues are 

more complex, and disputes are more difficult 

to resolve, especially for complex claims such 

as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In addition, 

the continued high level of claims has reduced 

the amount of staff time available for dispute 

resolution per case.

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.

During FY 2009, Longshore collected data 

to determine the average elapsed days between 

date of injury/employer’s date of knowledge 

and the receipt of the LS-202 (Employer’s First 

Report of Injury) and between the date of onset 

of disability and date of first payment of benefits. 

The results will be the basis of performance targets 

that will be integrated into Longshore GPRA goals 

for FY 2010 and beyond.

Performance Assessment

In response to the recommendations from the 2005 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and two 

independent studies by the private consulting 

firm SRA Corporation, the Longshore program 

completed action to re-baseline and develop outyear targets for the dispute resolution measure 

and is in the process of developing baselines 

and out-year targets for two new performance 

measures to track and measure benefit facilitation. 

DLHWC is developing and implementing 

an electronic database of authorized insurers. 

Currently the program collects handwritten 3x5 

cards that are then filed in a cabinet for recordkeeping purposes. Working with the National 

Council on Compensation Insurance, a nonprofit workers’ compensation data collecting 

organization, DLWHC is developing the means 

for insurers to report policies electronically for 

purposes of determining proof of coverage. The 

new system will save insurers the costs of creating, 

handling, and mailing the 3x5 cards, and save 

the Division the work of sorting, storing, and 

retrieving paperwork. The Special Fund system 

was updated to create the ability to enter and 

track medical bills on the system, enhancing 

management controls, accuracy, and security.
36

Language in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 amends the Longshore 

Act to exclude workers who repair recreational 

vessels or dismantle them for repair, regardless 

of the length of the vessel on which they work. 

DLHWC is working on a regulation to address 

the lack of a definition for “recreational vessel”, 

ensuring employees do not move in and out of 

coverage, and addressing employees who are 

excluded from State workers’ compensation 

coverage.

Although the Longshore program did 

not meet its GPRA target for FY 2009, program 

performance, as measured by GPRA outcome 

metrics, quarterly reviews of district office 

performance, and periodic accountability reviews, 

continues to be excellent despite continuing high 

incoming case loads.

Claims Management and 

Compliance Assistance 

Activities

The number of DBA injury and death reports 

of civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan 

continued at its elevated level in FY 2009, with 

cases totaling 8,486, of which 268 involved the 

death of a worker. Between FY 2003 and

FY 2009, a total of 51,678 DBA cases were reported, 

including 1,875 deaths, of which 39,255 cases 

(1,652 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 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 has continued the 

distribution of claims from Iraq and Afghanistan 

from the New York City District Office, which in 

the past handled all claims from that region, to the 

district office closest to the claimant’s residence. 

Without this management step, the New York 

office would have quickly 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 continued at very high 

levels, requiring prioritization.

The Longshore program’s efforts to 

enhance its Compliance Assistance to the public 

continued in FY 2009, 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.
37

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Rehabilitation Reforms

The depressed economy and concomitant rate 

of unemployment placed enormous pressure on 

the Longshore Rehabilitation program during FY 

2009. As jobs were eliminated nationwide in great 

numbers and the unemployment rate rose to 

historic levels, the opportunities to return injured 

workers to work became increasingly more 

difficult to secure. Despite these challenges and 

in addition to the hurdles experienced in normal 

rehabilitation efforts, the program was very 

successful during the year, achieving 100 percent 

of its placement goal due to the excellent work 

of the professional providers and the oversight 

of DLHWC’s district office staff. The program 

missed its vocational rehabilitation outcomes 

goal in FY 2009 with 49.4 percent of rehabilitation 

plan completers returning to work within 60 

days against a target of 51.7 percent, due to the 

significant challenges that existed in the job market 

resulting from the downturn in the economy.

Although the previous year’s pilot project 

to use financial incentives to improve return-towork outcomes did not produce the anticipated 

results, a novel trial effort to provide focused 

services at the largest employers did result in 

excellent outcomes. Expanding this method 

across the program will require some contractual 

revisions in the way rehabilitation cases are 

referred to the professional service providers, but 

will create better opportunities for Longshore 

program clients and better working relations with 

the employer community. Work on those changes 

will begin to coincide with the next round of 

contract renewals in FY 2012.

Litigation

During FY 2009, the courts of appeals published 

twelve decisions, and the Benefits Review 

Board (BRB) published thirty-one decisions, that 

discussed issues arising under the LHWCA or its 

extensions. Important points from some of these 

cases are summarized below.

COURTS OF APPEALS

Coverage for an Employee Injured on an Oil 

Production Platform – 33 U.S.C. §§ 902(3), 903. 

The Fifth Circuit issued an important coverage 

decision holding that an employee who was 

injured while working on an oil production facility 

that included a platform and a permanently 

attached storage barge with a loading dock 

satisfied the situs and status tests for LHWCA 

coverage. Coastal Production Services, Inc. v. Hudson,

555 F.3d 426 (5th Cir. 2009) (DeMoss, J., dissenting). 

The production facility received oil from satellite 

wells, separated gas and water from the oil, 

and transferred the oil to holding tanks on the 

platform. Thereafter, the oil was transferred from 

the barge’s loading dock onto customers’ vessels 

for delivery onshore. The employee’s regularly 

assigned duties included repairing the storage 

barge loading equipment and participating in 

loading the oil onto the customers’ vessels. He 

was injured while working on the platform 

performing a task unrelated to loading. A majority 

of the panel held that the entire area consisting 

of both the platform and the storage barge was 

a covered situs because both parts of the facility 

were an “other adjoining area” “customarily 

used” in loading vessels. 33 U.S.C. § 902(3). The 

majority further held that the employee satisfied 

the status test for a maritime “employee” because 

he regularly performed work that was integral to 
38

the loading process regardless that the covered 

duties represented only a fraction of his overall 

employment. 33 U.S.C. § 903(a).

“Filing” a Compensation Order by the District 

Director – 33 U.S.C. § 919(e). In Carillo v. Louisiana 

Ins. Guaranty Assoc., 559 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2009), 

the Fifth Circuit reached and decided a question 

reserved in Grant v. Director, OWCP, 502 F.3d 

361 (5th Cir. 2007), i.e., whether the filing of a 

compensation order under section 919(e) and 

20 C.F.R. § 702.349 also includes service of the 

order upon the parties by the District Director. 

Section 919(e) requires the District Director 

to file a compensation order and serve the 

parties by registered or certified mail. Section 

702.349 requires the District Director to date 

the compensation order and other specified 

documents by the close of business on the day 

following receipt; the District Director must serve 

the compensation order on the parties that same 

day. Agreeing with the Third and Seventh Circuits 

and disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit, the Fifth 

Circuit held that an order is “filed” in the Office 

of the District Director when the District Director 

completes the actions required by 20 C.F.R. § 

702.349, and that sending the order to the parties is 

not part of filing. The Court therefore rejected the 

argument that actual receipt of a compensation 

order is a necessary part of filing. In addition, 

the Fifth Circuit declined to address, as not 

properly presented, LIGA’s argument that its state 

enabling statute barred its liability for additional 

compensation under section 914(f).

Definition of “Subdivision” of a State – 33 U.S.C. 

§ 903(b). The Ninth Circuit held that the term 

“subdivision” of a State as used in section 903(b) 

includes the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & 

Transportation District. Wheaton v. Golden Gate 

Bridge, Highway & Transportation District, 559 F.3d 

979 (9th Cir. 2009). The LHWCA excludes from 

coverage employees of a subdivision of a State. 

The Court held that a repairman and maintenance 

employee of the Golden Gate District’s Ferry 

Division works for a subdivision of the State of 

California based on the factors considered in 

determining whether an entity is a subdivision or 

a private corporation for purposes of the National 

Labor Relations Act.

Definition of “Wages” – 33 U.S.C. § 902(13). 

An employer that denominated half the money 

it paid its employee “per diem” payments, and 

did not report those payments to the IRS, failed 

to convince the Fifth Circuit to adopt a strict rule 

that only taxable income can constitute wages 

under the LHWCA. The court held that section 

902(13)’s definition of “wages” included the per 

diem payments at issue here. B & D Contractors 

v. Pearley, 548 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2009). The Court 

based its decision on the manner in which the 

employer made the payments: they appeared 

in the same paycheck as the claimant’s normal 

wages; they were based on the number of hours 

worked; they bore no relationship to the actual 

costs of travel, meals or lodging; all employees 

received the same payment regardless of where 

they lived; and the payments represented 

almost half of the claimant’s paycheck. Relying 

on a Fourth Circuit case that found payments 

characterized as “per diem ... nothing more than a 

disguised wage,” the Fifth Circuit concluded that 

the “per diem” payments here “played the role of 

wages” and should therefore be treated as wages 

in calculating the disability benefits due to the 

claimant.
39

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

The topic of attorney fees continued to be the 

subject of numerous decisions in fiscal year 2009:

Prevailing Market Rate for Attorney Fees – 33 

U.S.C. § 928. Perhaps the most contentious of the 

attorney fee issues, the hourly rate, was addressed 

in two companion cases in the Ninth Circuit. The 

court vacated hourly rate determinations by the 

district director, the ALJ, and the BRB holding that 

LHWCA adjudicators must award reasonable 

attorney fees calculated according to the rates 

prevailing in the relevant community. Christensen 

v. Stevedoring Services of America, 557 F.3d 1049 

(9th Cir. 2009); Van Skike v. Director, OWCP, 557 

F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2009). Both cases held that an 

adjudicator could not rely on awards in other 

LHWCA cases because such a method ignored 

current market rates by effectively perpetuating 

an historical rate, and overlooked the fact that 

there is no private market for attorney fees under 

the LHWCA because the Act prohibits claimant 

attorneys from negotiating fee agreements. Both 

cases also noted that in order to attract competent 

counsel to take LHWCA cases, counsel should 

receive fees commensurate with those they could 

obtain by taking other types of cases.

Attorney’s Entitlement to Pre-Controversion 

Fees – 33 U.S.C. 928. Where liability for the 

claimant’s attorney fee is imposed on the 

employer, the question arises as to which part of 

the fees must be borne by the employer. Section 

928(a) provides that a claimant’s attorney is 

entitled to a fee once the employer controverts 

a claim and the claimant “thereafter” employs 

the attorney in the successful prosecution of a 

claim. The Ninth Circuit held that a claimant’s 

attorney is entitled to what has come to be known 

as both pre- and post-controversion fees when an 

employer controverts a claim and the claimant 

“thereafter” employs the attorney to obtain 

benefits. Dyer v. Cenex Harvest States Cooperative,

563 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit 

disagreed with the Fourth and Fifth Circuits, 

which have held that a claimant’s attorney is 

limited to fees for work performed after the 

employer controverts the claim. The Ninth Circuit 

concluded that the word “thereafter” does not 

impose a temporal bar on pre-controversion fees, 

but only requires the claimant to employ the 

attorney after controversion in order to shift fee 

liability. 

Relevant “Community” for Awarding Attorney 

Fees – 33 U.S.C. § 928. The Seventh Circuit held 

that an ALJ acted within his discretion in basing 

a fee award on the attorney’s hourly billing rate 

for the community in which she practiced rather 

than the market rate where the case was litigated. 

Jeffboat, LLC v. Director, OWCP (Furrow), 553 F.3d 

487 (7th Cir. 2009). The injured employee’s case 

was heard by an ALJ in Indiana, but his attorney 

was from Connecticut. The attorney used the 

market rate for attorneys practicing in Connecticut 

as her hourly billing rate. The Supreme Court 

has held that an attorney receiving an award 

under a fee-shifting statute (like the LHWCA) 

must establish the requested fee is in line with 

the prevailing hourly rate used by comparable 

attorneys in the “community.” The Court held 

that “community” as used by the Supreme Court 

could be the community where the attorney 

practiced rather than the “local market area” 

where the case was litigated because the subject 

matter of the litigation is highly specialized and the 

market for legal services is a national market. 
40

Employer’s Attorney Fee Liability Based on 

Acceptance of a Favorable District Director 

Recommendation Denying Additional 

Compensation – 33 U.S.C. § 928. Continuing its 

literal and restrictive reading of section 928, the 

Fifth Circuit held that an employer is not liable for 

a claimant’s attorney fee if it accepts the District 

Director’s recommendation denying claimant 

additional compensation even though the 

claimant later prevails before an ALJ. Andrepont v. 

Murphy Exploration and Production Co., 566 F.3d 415 

(5th Cir. 2009). Among the conditions that section 

928(b) establishes for an employer to be liable for 

a claimant’s attorney fee is that it refuse to accept 

a District Director’s written recommendation 

concerning additional compensation and the 

claimant later obtains such compensation. 

Agreeing with the Fourth and Sixth Circuits 

and disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit, the Fifth 

Circuit held that an employer need not reject 

the District Director’s recommendation in order 

to assume liability for a claimant’s attorney’s 

fee. Based on a literal interpretation of Section 

928(b), the Court concluded that the employer 

was not liable for an attorney’s fee because it 

had accepted, not rejected, the District Director’s 

recommendation. 

BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD 

Reflecting the increased use of contractors 

overseas, especially to support military activities 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, the BRB issued a number 

of important decisions in cases arising under the 

Defense Base Act (DBA), 42 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.

Computing a DBA Claimant’s Average Weekly 

Wage – 33 U.S.C. § 910. The BRB vacated an ALJ’s 

application of the so-called “blended approach” 

to calculating the average weekly wage (AWW) 

of DBA employees injured shortly after starting 

their foreign assignments. The BRB held that 

an ALJ should consider only the higher wages 

the employee received while working overseas 

notwithstanding that section 910(c) authorizes the 

adjudicator to consider an employee’s earnings 

in previous employment together with wages 

earned at the time of injury. The employee 

worked overseas for only a short period before 

being injured, and the domestic wages were much 

lower than those earned abroad. K.S. v. Service 

Employees Int’l, Inc. 43 BRBS 18 (2009), mot. for 

recon. den. 43 BRBS 136, 2009 WL 3308377 (Sept. 

25, 2009) (en banc). The BRB reasoned that the 

higher overseas wages reflected the premium rate 

the employer was willing to pay for the claimant 

to work under dangerous conditions. The BRB 

noted that the claimant had a one-year, full-time, 

employment contract; that he intended to fulfill 

that contract; and that he expressed the intent to 

continue working in Iraq beyond the one year. 

The BRB concluded “blending” the claimant’s 

domestic and overseas wages would distort his 

earning capacity by compensating him at a lower 

rate than the employer agreed to pay for work 

performed in a war zone. On reconsideration, 

the BRB rejected the employer’s arguments that 

the BRB improperly intruded on the ALJ’s broad 

discretion to make AWW findings and that its 

decision required adjudicators to consider only 

overseas earnings in every DBA case.

DBA and Non-Appropriated Fund 

Instrumentalities Act (NAFI) Coverage for 

Foreign Citizens Working Abroad at a Military 

Post-Exchange – 42 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq.; 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8171 et seq. Two resident-citizens of the Republic 

of Phillippines were denied death benefits under 
41

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

either the DBA or the Non-Appropriated Fund 

Instrumentalities Act (NAFI), 5 U.S.C. § 8171 

et seq., because (i) the NAFI has superseded 

the DBA and is the exclusive remedy for such 

claimants; and (ii) the NAFI requires the claimants 

to seek compensation from the Secretary of the 

military department involved. A.P.(widow of R.P.) 

v. Navy Exchange Service Command, 43 BRBS 123 

(2009). Because the NAFI requires a claimant to 

seek compensation as provided by regulations 

of the Secretary of the appropriate military 

department, the BRB affirmed the ALJ’s finding 

that he lacked jurisdiction to consider the claims 

on the merits. 

Definition of a “Military Base” under the DBA -- 

42 U.S.C. § 1651 et seq. Affirming an ALJ’s denial 

of a claim by the employee of a US contractor who 

suffered PTSD after the hotel at which she was 

staying in Baghdad’s Green Zone was attacked 

by rocket fire, the BRB found that the DBA did 

not cover the employee. Z.S. v. Science Applications 

Int’l Corp., 42 BRBS 87 (2008). The DBA covers 

individuals employed at “any military, air, or 

naval base acquired . . . by the United States” from 

a foreign government. 42 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(1). The 

DBA, however, does not define military base. The 

BRB held that to constitute a “military base” for 

purposes of the DBA, the area had to be under the 

control of the United States military in accordance 

with definitions adopted by the United States 

Code and regulations issued by the Secretaries 

of the military departments. These definitions 

focus on whether the United States military owns, 

controls, or exercises jurisdiction over, the facility. 

Thus, the Board held that the Green Zone was not 

a military base. The DBA also covers individuals 

employed under a contract with any agency of the 

United States where the contract is for public work 

and to be performed outside the continental US. 

42 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(4). The BRB affirmed the ALJ’s 

findings that the claimant was not working on 

such a contract at the time of her injury. Rather, she 

was hired to go to Iraq to develop new business 

for her employer.

Illegal Alien’s Entitlement to Benefits as an 

“Employee” – 33 U.S.C. § 902(3). The BRB held 

that an employee’s status as an undocumented 

alien is irrelevant to determining whether that 

individual is entitled to LHWCA benefits. J.R. v. 

Bollinger Shipyard, Inc., 42 BRBS 95 (2008). Section 

902(3) defines “employee” as a person engaged 

in maritime employment with certain exceptions 

involving excluded types of employment. 33 

U.S.C. § 902(3)(A)-(H). The BRB concluded that 

the statutory definition, including exceptions, 

does not premise coverage on citizenship status. 

The BRB therefore held that an employee who 

is an illegal alien is not precluded from receiving 

benefits.

Application of LHWCA to Overseas Injuries – 

33 U.S.C. § 903(a). The BRB held that an employee 

injured while employed in Asian ports is not 

covered by the Act because he was abroad on 

a “prolonged foreign assignment” rather than 

a temporary assignment. J.T. v. Global Intern’l 

Offshore, Ltd., 43 BRBS 92, BRB Nos. 08-0119 & 

08-0119A (July 29, 2009). Section 903(a) limits 

coverage of the LHWCA to injuries “occurring 

upon the navigable waters of the United States.” 

33 U.S.C. § 903(a). In Weber v. S.C. Loveland Co., 28 

BRBS 321 (1994), decision after remand, 35 BRBS 75 

(2001), the BRB noted that precedent establishes 

that for purposes of the LHWCA the navigable 

waters of the United States include the high 

seas and found covered an employee injured in 
42

Kingston, Jamaica. In J.T., the BRB distinguished 

Weber finding it critical that the employee’s 

assignment to the foreign ports was prolonged 

and not merely temporary. J.T. worked for a 

domestic-based company, but was assigned 

overseas for a four-year period during which he 

had no work-related reason to return to the United 

States. The BRB reasoned that the employee was 

not covered because he was assigned overseas for 

a lengthy period; all of his employment-related 

contacts were with the foreign countries where he 

worked; and his assignments commenced and 

terminated in those countries. Thus, the BRB held 

that the employee’s injury did not occur upon the 

navigable waters of the United States.

Section 17 Trust Fund’s Entitlement to a Lien 

and Participation in a Settlement – 33 U.S.C. §§ 

917, 907(d). Addressing a little-litigated provision 

of the Act, the BRB held that a section 917 trust 

fund with a vested lien on disability benefits it 

paid to the claimant under its welfare plan must 

agree to any settlement between the claimant and 

employer affecting the fund’s right to recover the 

benefits it paid. M.K. v. California United Terminals,

43 BRBS 1 (2009), mot. for recon. den. 43 BRBS 115, 

2009 WL 2845676 (Aug. 28, 2009). Thus, claimants 

and employers cannot settle claims in which 

the section 917 trust fund has a financial interest 

without simultaneously satisfying the trust fund’s 

claims. Section 917 provides that a trust fund 

established pursuant to a collective bargaining 

agreement is entitled to a lien on a claimant’s 

LHWCA compensation if the trust fund pays 

disability benefits to the claimant and the claimant 

becomes legally obligated to repay those benefits 

because he is entitled to compensation under 

the LHWCA. Section 907(d)(3) authorizes an 

award to any party in interest who has paid for 

an employee’s medical treatment that should 

have been borne by the employer. The BRB held 

that a section 917 trust fund may, under section 

907(d)(3), intervene in settlement proceedings in 

order to seek reimbursement of medical benefits 

it paid and the adjudicator must make provision 

for reimbursing the trust fund as part of the 

compensation order approving the settlement. 

The BRB further held that the trust fund’s right 

to reimbursement of Section 907 medical benefits 

must be resolved simultaneously with the 

claimant’s medical benefits claims because the 

fund’s rights derive from the claimant’s rights. 

Otherwise, a separate settlement of the medical 

benefits claims without trust fund participation 

would leave the fund without legal recourse. On 

reconsideration, the BRB reiterated its holding 

that the trust fund is entitled to participate in 

settlement proceedings involving medical 

expenses already paid by the fund. Because the 

settlement agreement at issue purported to settle 

the claimants’ entitlement to all past and future 

medical benefits, the BRB concluded that the trust 

fund had a financial interest in the settlement 

and its rights would be impaired if the medical 

benefits claims were settled separately from the 

compensation claims. Finally, the BRB clarified 

that its Section 907(d)(3) holding pertained only to 

those parties with an actual financial interest in the 

settlement.
43

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ 

Compensation Act

FY 2008 FY 2009

Number of Employees 

(FTE Staffing Used) 97 98

Administrative Expenditures 1 $ 12.6 M $ 12.8 M

Lost-Time Injuries Reported 29,170 28,952

Total Compensation Paid 2 $926.7 M $983.8 M

 Wage-Loss and Survivor Benefits $642.9 M $706.0 M

 Medical Benefits $283.8 M $277.8 M

Sources of Compensation Paid

 Insurance Companies 2 $456.8 M $504.3 M

 Self-Insured Employers 2 $325.5 M $340.3 M

 LHWCA Special Fund $126.9 M $132.7 M

 DCCA Special Fund $ 10.1 M $ 10.1 M

 DOL Appropriation $ 2.3 M $ 2.2 M

1 Direct administrative costs to OWCP only; excludes DOL support costs of $13.3 million 

in FY 2008 and $13.7 million in FY 2009, respectively.

2 Figures are for CY 2007 and CY 2008, respectively. Note: Total compensation paid 

does not equal the sum of the sources of compensation due to the different time periods 

(CY v. FY) by which the various data are reported. For Special Fund assessment billing 

purposes as required by section 44 of LHWCA, compensation and medical benefit payments made by insurance carriers and self-insured employers under the Acts are reported 

to DOL for the previous calendar year.

45

Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act

Introduction

Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act (EEOICPA) in October 2000. Part B of EEOICPA, effective on 
46

July 31, 2001, compensates current or former employees (or their survivors) of the 

Department of Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and certain of its vendors, 

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

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

radiation, beryllium, or silica while employed at covered facilities. The EEOICPA 

also provides compensation to individuals (or their eligible survivors) awarded 

benefits by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Section 5 of the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act (RECA). 

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

and compensates DOE contractor/subcontractor employees, eligible survivors of such 

employees, and uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters as defined by RECA 

Section 5 for illnesses that are linked to toxic exposures in the DOE or mining work 

environment. 

On July 31, 2009, the Department of Labor (DOL) marked the eighth 

anniversary of its administration of the EEOICPA. DOL has served a far larger 

audience than even the proponents of the statute predicted at the time of enactment, 

and the compensation totals have far exceeded Congress’ initial expectations. From 

the program’s inception to the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, the Division of Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) has awarded compensation 

and medical benefits totaling over $5.1 billion under both Parts B and E of the 

EEOICPA. During this time, 54,308 employees or their families have received nearly 

$4.8 billion in compensation and over $377 million in medical expenses associated 

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

more than $3 billion (since 2001) while Part E compensation has totaled more than $1.7 

billion (since 2005).

In FY 2009 alone, 5,286 employees or their eligible survivors received $437.5 

million in Part B compensation. In addition, 4,881 employees or their survivors 

received $428.7 million in Part E compensation. A total of $120.6 million was paid 

in covered medical benefits in FY 2009 under both Parts B and E of the EEOICPA, 

bringing total benefits to nearly $987 million for the year.
47

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Administration

Implementation of the EEOICPA is a uniquely 

intergovernmental activity, involving the 

coordinated efforts of four federal agencies to 

administer: DOL, DOE, DOJ, and the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). DOL 

has primary responsibility for administering 

the EEOICPA, including adjudication of claims 

for compensation and payment of benefits for 

conditions covered by Parts B and E.

DOE designates Atomic Weapons 

Employer (AWE) facilities and provides DOL and 

HHS with verification of covered employment 

and relevant information on exposures including 

access to restricted data. DOJ notifies beneficiaries 

who have received an award of benefits under 

RECA Section 5 of their possible EEOICPA 

eligibility and provides RECA claimants with 

information required by DOL to complete the 

claim development process.

HHS, through its National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 

establishes procedures for estimating radiation 

doses, develops guidelines to determine the 

probability that a cancer was caused by workplace 

exposure to radiation, establishes procedures 

for designation of new Special Exposure Cohort 

(SEC) classes, and carries out the actual dose 

reconstruction for cases referred by DOL. Under 

the EEOICPA, Congress established the SEC to 

allow eligible claims to be compensated without 

the completion of a radiation dose reconstruction 

or determination of the probability of causation. 

To qualify for compensation under the SEC, 

a covered employee must have at least one of 

twenty-two “specified cancers” and have worked 

for a certain period of time at an SEC facility. HHS 

also provides administrative services and other 

necessary support to the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health. The Board advises 

HHS on the scientific validity and quality of dose 

reconstruction efforts, and receives and provides 

recommendations on petitions submitted 

requesting additional classes of employees for 

inclusion as members of the SEC.

Benefits Under the EEOICPA

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

EEOICPA, an employee must have worked for 

DOE or a DOE contractor or subcontractor during 

a covered time period at a DOE facility, or have 

worked for a private company designated as a 

covered AWE or beryllium vendor. The worker 

must have developed cancer, chronic beryllium 

disease, or beryllium sensitivity due to exposures 

at a covered work site, or chronic silicosis (for 

individuals who worked in Nevada and Alaskan 

nuclear test tunnels). A covered employee who 

qualifies for benefits under Part B may receive a 

one-time lump-sum payment of $150,000, plus 

medical expenses related to an accepted, covered 

condition. Survivors of these workers may also be 

eligible for a lump-sum compensation payment. 

Part B also provides for payment of $50,000 to 

individuals (or their eligible survivors) who 

received an award from DOJ under Section 5 of 

the RECA.

For all claims filed under Part B, the 

employment and illness documentation is 

developed by claims staff and evaluated in 

accordance with the criteria in the EEOICPA 
48

and relevant regulations and procedures. DOL 

district offices then issue recommended decisions 

to claimants. Claims filed under Part B for the 

$50,000 RECA supplement are the least complex, 

involving verification by DOJ that a RECA award 

has been made, and documentation of the identity 

of the claimant (including survivor relationship). 

DOL can also move quickly on cases involving 

“specified cancers” at SEC facilities because the 

EEOICPA provides a presumption that any of 

the twenty-two listed cancers incurred by an 

SEC worker was caused by radiation exposure 

at the SEC facility. For cases involving claimed 

cancers that are not covered by SEC provisions 

(that is, either cancers incurred at a non-SEC 

facility, a non-specified cancer incurred at an 

SEC facility, or an employee who did not have 

sufficient employment duration to qualify for 

the SEC designation), there is an intervening 

step in the process to determine causation called 

“dose reconstruction.” In these instances, once 

DOL determines that a worker was a covered 

employee and that he or she had a diagnosis 

of cancer, the case is referred to NIOSH so 

that the individual’s radiation dose can be 

estimated. After NIOSH completes the dose 

reconstruction and calculates a dose estimate for 

the worker, DOL takes this estimate and applies 

the methodology promulgated by HHS in its 

probability of causation regulation to determine 

if the statutory causality test is met. The standard 

is met if the cancer was “at least as likely as not” 

related to covered employment, as indicated by a 

determination of at least 50 percent probability.

Part E. The EEOICPA’s Part E establishes a 

system of federal payments for employees of 

DOE contractors and subcontractors (or their 

eligible survivors) for illnesses determined to have 

resulted from exposure to toxic substances at a 

covered DOE facility. Uranium miners, millers, 

and ore transporters as defined by Section 5 of the 

RECA may also 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 

work-related exposure to a toxic substance was 

a significant factor in causing, contributing to, or 

aggravating the illness or death of an employee. 

Additionally, the EEOICPA provides that any 

determination made under Part B to award 

benefits (including RECA Section 5 claims), is an 

automatic acceptance under Part E for causation 

of the illness, where the employment criteria are 

also met. The maximum payable compensation 

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

to any individual employee, meaning that a 

total of $400,000 can be paid in Part B plus E 

compensation with respect to a single worker.

Under Part E, a covered employee 

may also be eligible to receive compensation 

for the percentage of impairment of the whole 

person that is related to a covered illness. The 

EEOICPA specifically requires that impairment 

be determined in accordance with the American 

Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation 

of Permanent Impairment (AMA’s Guides). 

Impairments included in ratings are those that 

have reached maximum medical improvement 

(MMI), i.e., they are well-stabilized and unlikely 

to improve substantially with or without medical 

treatment. MMI is not required if an illness is in a 

terminal or progressive stage. Eligible employees 

receive $2,500 for each percentage point of 

impairment found to be attributable to a covered 

illness under Part E.

Also under Part E, covered employees 

may be eligible to receive wage-loss benefits. 

Wage-loss benefits are paid for each qualifying 

calendar year (prior to reaching normal Social 

Security Act retirement age) in which, as a result 

of the covered illness, an employee’s earnings fell 

a specific percentage below his or her average 
49

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

annual earnings for the 36-month period 

prior to the month in which the employee first 

experienced wage-loss (not including periods of 

unemployment). The EEOICPA provides that 

covered, eligible employees may receive $15,000 

for any year in which they made less than 50 

percent of their baseline wage as a result of a 

covered illness, and $10,000 for any year in which 

they made more than 50 percent but less than 75 

percent of that baseline wage. Medical benefits for 

the covered illness are also payable, in addition to 

monetary compensation.

Part E survivor benefits include a basic 

lump sum of $125,000 where it is established that 

the employee was exposed to a toxic substance 

at a DOE facility and that the exposure was “at 

least as likely as not” a significant factor in causing, 

contributing to, or aggravating the illness and 

death of the employee. Part E also provides 

$25,000 in additional benefits to eligible survivors, 

if the deceased employee had, as of his or her 

normal retirement age under the Social Security 

Act, at least ten aggregate calendar years of wageloss of at least 50 percent of his or her baseline 

wage. If an employee had twenty or more such 

years, the additional amount paid to an eligible 

survivor may increase to $50,000. The maximum 

Part E compensation benefit for a survivor is 

$175,000.

Funding

DOL funding covers direct and indirect expenses 

to administer the Washington, D.C. National 

Office; five Final Adjudication Branch Offices; four 

DEEOIC District Offices in Seattle, Washington; 

Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and 

Jacksonville, Florida; and eleven Resource Centers 

operated by a contractor. A private contractor 

processes medical bills to reduce overhead and 

to increase program efficiency. In FY 2009, DOL 

spent $50.6 million under Part B and $65.2 million 

under Part E to administer the EEOICPA. These 

funds supported 316 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

staff for Part B and 281 FTE for Part E. Under Part 

E, $0.8 million in additional funds supported the 

Office of the Ombudsman position. Funding for 

the NIOSH radiation dose reconstruction process 

and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health was provided in the Health and Human 

Services appropriation.

Adjudication of Claims

In FY 2009, DEEOIC continued to receive a 

substantial number of new claims, creating a total 

of 4,873 new cases (7,179 new claims) for living or 

deceased employees under Part B, and 5,762 new 

cases (7,509 new claims) under Part E. Each case 

represents an employee whose illness is the basis 

for a claim; however, a single case may contain 

multiple survivor claims. Under the EEOICPA, 

workers or their survivors may qualify for Part 

B benefits only, Part E benefits only, or benefits 

under both Parts B and E. Claims and cases under 

Parts B and E are counted separately (that is, if a 

claimant is potentially eligible under both Parts, his 

or her claim will be counted under both Part B and 

Part E). 

Under the Act, the Secretary of HHS is 

responsible for adding new classes of employees 

to the SEC where a complete dose reconstruction 

cannot be performed by NIOSH. The Act 

itself initially designated certain employees at 

four sites (the three gaseous diffusion plants 

in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; 

and Portsmouth, Ohio; and an underground 

nuclear test site on Amchitka Island, Alaska) 
50

as belonging to the SEC. As of September 30, 

2009, NIOSH had added 44 additional classes 

of employees to the four statutory classes in 

the SEC which combined represent workers 

at 39 facilities. During FY 2009, NIOSH added 

nine classes of employees at the following 

facilities: the Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear 

Engine Laboratory (CANEL) in Middletown, 

Connecticut; the Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., the 

Destrehan Street Plant in St. Louis, Missouri; Vitro 

Manufacturing in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; 

the Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago, Illinois; 

the Westinghouse Atomic Power Development 

Plant in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; the 

Tyson Valley Powder Farm near Eureka, 

Missouri; the Hood Building in Cambridge, 

Massachusetts; Standard Oil Development 

Co. of New Jersey in both Linden and Bayway, 

New Jersey; and Area IV of the Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California. 

When a new class of employees is added to the 

SEC, DOL reviews all affected cases and makes 

a determination on whether the employee in 

question meets the criteria for inclusion in the 

new class. Any previously denied claim with 

employment meeting the new definition is 

reopened for additional development and a new 

recommended decision.

For claims filed under Part E, claims 

examiners use an array of tools including the Site 

Exposure Matrices (SEM) database that provides 

information about substances used in specific 

DOE facilities and the occupational illnesses 

and health effects associated with exposure to 

specific toxic substances. District offices also 

rely on DOE’s records that contain employees’ 

radiological dose records, incident or accident 

reports, industrial hygiene or safety records, 

personnel records, job descriptions, medical 

records, and other records that prove useful in 

determining causation. A referral to a District 

Medical Consultant (DMC) may be required to 

determine a medical diagnosis, whether or not 

an illness is indicative of toxic substance exposure 

versus a natural medical process, whether there 

is a causal relationship between claimed illnesses 

and the occupational exposure history, or to 

evaluate an employee’s cause of death. DMC 

referrals may also be necessary for impairment 

evaluations and for opinions regarding the 

causal relationship between a covered illness and 

claimed wage-loss. As of September 30, 2009, 77 

board-certified physicians were enrolled as DMC 

contractors for the program. Claims may also be 

referred to a health physicist, industrial hygienist, 

or a toxicologist when a scientific determination 

regarding the case is required.

Recommended Decisions and Final Decisions. 

The DEEOIC district offices process EEOICPA 

claims to the “recommended decision” stage: for 

each claim they issue a recommended decision to 

approve or deny the claim. Each recommended 

decision made by the district office must be 
51

reviewed by the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB), 

which ensures that the EEOICPA’s requirements, 

program policies, and procedures are followed 

and issues a final decision. Before making a 

final decision, the FAB considers any challenges 

brought by the claimant through either a review 

of the written record or an oral hearing. During 

FY 2009, the FAB conducted 1,451 reviews of 

the written record and oral hearings for 1,141 

claimants. For each claim, the FAB reviews the 

evidence of record, the recommended decision, 

and any objections/testimony submitted by the 

claimant or his/her representative, and issues a 

final decision either awarding or denying benefits. 

The FAB may also remand a decision to the 

district office, if further development of the case 

is necessary. A claimant may challenge the FAB’s 

final decisions by requesting a reconsideration or 

reopening of the claim, or may file a petition for 

review of a final decision with the appropriate 

U.S. District Court. While Part B and Part E of the 

EEOICPA each have unique eligibility criteria, 

DEEOIC usually adjudicates all claims for benefits 

under Parts B and E as a unified claim for greater 

efficiency, and where possible, decisions are issued 

that address both Parts B and E simultaneously. 

However, partial decisions may also be issued in 

cases where benefits under some provisions can 

be awarded, but claims under other provisions 

require further development. 

During FY 2009, DEEOIC district offices 

issued 10,979 Part B claim-level recommended 

decisions and 11,726 Part E claim-level 

recommended decisions. Further, the FAB issued 

11,606 Part B claim-level final decisions and 11,889 

Part E claim-level final decisions. DOL approved 

benefits in 46.9 percent of covered Part B claims 

and 57.9 percent of covered Part E claims that 

received a final decision during FY 2009.

Outreach Activities

DEEOIC’s staff continues to sponsor outreach 

activities to disseminate information about 

EEOICPA benefits and to provide one-on-one 

assistance to claimants in applying for benefits.

Resource center and district office 

personnel supported the collaborative outreach 

efforts led by DEEOIC’s Branch of Outreach 

and Technical Assistance (BOTA) in the national 

office. During FY 2009, as additional classes of 

employees were added by the Secretary of HHS to 

the SEC, DOL sponsored four town hall meetings 

and traveling resource centers in Pittsburg, 

Kansas; Washington, Pennsylvania; Cromwell, 

Connecticut; and Simi Valley, California, to present 

details about new SEC classes at the Spencer 

Chemical Company Jayhawks Works, Vitro 

Manufacturing (Canonsburg), the Westinghouse 

Atomic Power Development Plant, the 

Connecticut Aircraft Nuclear Engine Laboratory 

(CANEL), and Area IV of the Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory. Over 150 individuals attended 

these town hall meetings and traveling resource 

centers and as a result of these meetings, resource 

center staff submitted 58 new claims to DOL 

for adjudication. DOL also sponsored 2 town 

hall meetings in Grand Junction, Colorado, and 

Farmington, New Mexico, focused on providing 

information to the Section 5 uranium worker 

community. Over 90 individuals attended these 

two meetings and 28 new claims were filed as a 

result of these events.

Many former Section 5 uranium 

workers live in remote or rural areas where 

communications are difficult, such as the Navajo 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act
52

and other reservations in Arizona, New Mexico, 

Utah, and Colorado. Therefore, DEEOIC resolved 

in these western states to conduct additional 

outreach activities. In response to large attendance 

at past town hall meetings held in the Navajo 

Nation, DEEOIC continues to sponsor monthly 

traveling resource centers in Shiprock, New 

Mexico, and Kayenta, Arizona, to provide inperson assistance to Navajo and other EEOICPA 

claimants.

The Office of the Ombudsman conducted 

town hall meetings in Shoreham, New York; St. 

Charles, Missouri; Cincinnati and Columbus, 

Ohio; and Des Moines, Iowa, during FY 2009. At 

the request of the Ombudsman, DEEOIC national 

office, district office, and resource center staff 

participated in each of these town hall meetings 

by providing claim status updates to claimants, 

taking new claims, and answering questions as 

needed. Further, working with DOE’s Worker 

Medical Screening Program and HHS, DEEOIC 

staff participated in a joint outreach task group in 

order to provide information and clarification to 

former nuclear workers and their families about 

the EEOICPA.

Other examples of DEEOIC outreach 

activities conducted during FY 2009 include 

meetings with local governments and chambers 

of commerce, presentations to personnel 

at covered facilities and unions, and other 

community initiatives. During FY 2009 the district 

offices received 155,637 phone calls and the FAB 

received 6,237 phone calls. Nearly all calls that 

required a return call were returned within two 

business days.

Services to Claimants

The Departments of Labor, Health and Human 

Services, Energy, and Justice provide assistance 

to current and potential claimants and surviving 

family members, to help them understand the 

EEOICPA and claimants’ rights and obligations 

under the program. DOL has implemented 

several strategies to assist workers and survivors in 

filing claims, collecting evidence to support claims, 

and understanding the adjudication process from 

start to finish:

Website. DEEOIC’s website provides important 

information about the statute and regulations 

governing Parts B and E of the EEOICPA, and 

gives claimants access to brochures, claim forms, 

and electronic filing of claims. During FY 2009, 

fifteen policy bulletins and one circular concerning 

the administration of the EEOICPA were posted 

to the site. Further, the website also provides the 

locations and times of town hall meetings; district 

office and resource center locations and contact 

numbers; press releases; and medical provider 

enrollment information. Claimants can also view 

DEEOIC and NIOSH weekly web statistics; 

payment statistics at the national, state, and facility 

levels; and the searchable database of DEEOIC final 

decisions. The website also provides links to DOE, 

DOJ, and NIOSH’s websites and toll-free numbers 

where additional information and assistance can be 

obtained.

During FY 2009, in an effort to be as 

accessible and transparent as possible to the 

claimant community, the DEEOIC added 

new information to its website providing the 

public with additional information concerning 

DEEOIC’s administration of the EEOICPA. This 

information included stories highlighting DEEOIC 

accomplishments; statistical information displaying 

the overall average adjudication time for certain 

types of claims, including those claims requiring 
53

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

a NIOSH dose reconstruction; graphs showing 

DEEOIC performance in meeting its Government 

Performance Results Act goals; and additional 

statistical graphs showing the amount of 

compensation paid over time at various facilities 

covered under the EEOICPA including the 

Hanford Site, the Iowa Ordnance Plant, the Oak 

Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K-25), Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site, the 

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Rocky Flats, 

and several other covered facilities.

Unified Procedure Manual. During FY 2009, 

DEEOIC undertook to revise and update the 

program’s procedure manual that claims staff 

nationwide use to adjudicate claims. The new 

Unified Procedure Manual incorporates the 

former Part B Procedure Manual and the former 

Part E Procedure Manual into one guidance 

document. Further, the Unified Procedure 

Manual also includes DEEOIC policy bulletins 

and circulars currently posted on DEEOIC’s 

website.

While the complete Unified Procedure 

Manual will be released in the first quarter of FY 

2010, certain chapters were released and posted on 

DEEOIC’s website during FY 2009 to expedite the 

implementation of new policies and procedures, 

including expanding the authority of the district 

offices to review cases for reopening and granting 

the district offices the authority to communicate 

directly with the Social Security Administration 

to speed up the decision process. Each chapter of 

the Unified Procedure Manual becomes effective 

upon publication.

Role of Resource Centers. DEEOIC’s network 

of Resource Centers (RCs) at major DOE sites 

provides an initial point-of-contact for workers 

interested in the program and in-person and 

toll-free telephone-based assistance to individuals 

filing claims under the EEOICPA. In FY 2009, 

the RC contractor had 68 employees at 11 sites to 

help claimants complete necessary claim forms 

and gather documentation that can support their 

claims. The RCs assist with initial employment 

verification and Part E occupational history 

development, and forward all claims and 

associated documentation to the appropriate 

district office. The RCs also answer claimants’ 

initial questions regarding impairment and wageloss benefits. During FY 2009, the RCs helped 

claimants file 9,935 claims, received over 110,000 

telephone calls, conducted over 42,000 follow-up 

actions with claimants, processed over 7,600 initial 

employment verification requests, conducted 

over 6,100 occupational history interviews, and 

made 6,150 contacts with claimants regarding 

impairment and wage-loss benefits.

The RCs continued to assist claimants 

with the medical bill payment process, preparation 

of requests for pre-authorized medical travel, and 

submission of claims for reimbursement related 

to medical travel. As a result of their expanded 

role, the RCs made approximately 40,000 contacts 

related to medical bills. In addition, the RCs 

enrolled over 2,300 new medical providers into the 

program.

Center for Construction Research and Training.

DEEOIC renewed its contract with the Center for 

Construction Research and Training, formerly 

called the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights 

(CPWR), in FY 2008. CPWR has been tasked 

with researching and providing employment 

information for construction/trade workers 

(who worked at DOE, AWE, or beryllium 

vendor facilities) in cases where DOL has been 
54

unable to obtain reliable information through 

available resources. In FY 2009, CPWR provided 

responses to 1,095 requests for information. 

CPWR also maintains a website-accessible 

database that identifies and confirms the existence 

of contractual relationships between contractor 

and subcontractor employers and certain covered 

facilities. This database is available to DEEOIC 

claims examiners.

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) Database. In 

FY 2009, DEEOIC continued to enhance its 

database of “site exposure matrices” to assist 

claims examiners in determining the types of 

chemicals and toxic substances that existed at the 

major DOE facilities, easing claimants’ evidentiary 

burdens and speeding the claims process. The 

SEM project team added information on 15 new 

DOE sites and updated existing SEM matrices of 

24 DOE sites during FY 2009. A total of 212 new 

toxic substances were added to the SEM database 

as a result of public and worker input. As of 

September 30, 2009, SEM housed information on 

9,100 toxic substances/chemicals used at 99 DOE 

sites, 4,170 uranium mines, 47 uranium mills, and 

17 uranium ore buying stations covered under the 

EEOICPA.

DOL continued to provide funding to 

support further development and expansion 

of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) 

Haz-Map Occupational Health Database. This 

database contains information about the possible 

effects of exposure to hazardous agents that assists 

DOL in developing and adjudicating claims filed 

under Part E of EEOICPA, and relieves claimants 

of some of the burden of proof in their claims. The 

funding provided in FY 2009 allowed NLM to add 

1,234 new health/chemical profiles to its Haz-Map 

database.

Database Systems. DEEOIC’s Branch of 

Automated Data Processing Systems (BAS) is 

responsible for providing DEEOIC’s internal 

and external customers an entire array of secure 

and reliable computer services and support. 

This includes the support of the Energy Case 

Management System (ECMS) which serves as a 

repository for data related to claims adjudication 

activities and compensation benefits. New 

software releases delivered in FY 2009 provided 

additional claims processing support mechanisms 

and multiple reporting and caseload management 

tools and reports. These enhancements facilitated 

the claims adjudication process and enabled claims 

personnel and managers to once again meet and 

exceed strategic and operational goals.

DEEOIC is currently developing an 

integrated, modernized and expanded missioncritical case management system. The new unified 

system will replace the separate Part B and Part E 

case management systems that have supported 

DEEOIC’s users since Part B (2001) and Part E’s 

(2005) inception.
55

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

Ombudsman. Under the Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-375, 42 

U.S.C. § 7385s-15, signed into law on October 28, 

2004, an Office of the Ombudsman was created 

for a period of three years, to provide information 

to claimants, potential claimants, and other 

interested parties on the benefits available under 

Part E of the EEOICPA and how to obtain those 

benefits. In January 2008, the National Defense 

Authorization Act of 2008 extended the term 

of this office to October 28, 2012; on October 28, 

2009, the National Defense Authorization Act 

of 2009 expanded the authority of the Office to 

also include Part B of the EEOICPA. The Office 

of the Ombudsman, within the Department of 

Labor but independent from OWCP, reports 

annually to Congress concerning complaints, 

grievances, and requests for assistance received 

during the calendar year covered by the report. 

DEEOIC continues to work directly with the 

Ombudsman’s office to promptly resolve 

any issues and concerns stemming from the 

Ombudsman’s findings. 

Government Performance 

Results Act

DOL is committed to measuring its outcomes 

and maintaining accountability for achieving 

the fundamental goals of the EEOICPA. High 

performance standards, focusing on moving 

EEOICPA claims rapidly through the initial 

and secondary adjudication stages, have been 

established, and DOL has maintained a strong 

record of meeting its key performance goals 

under the Government Performance Results Act 

(GPRA).

DEEOIC’s three indicators achieved 

under DOL’s GPRA goal to “minimize the 

human, social, and financial impact of workrelated injuries for workers and their families” 

were as follows:

In FY 2007, EEOICP began to measure 

average days for completion of initial 

processing as that measure is a good indicator 

of overall effectiveness in delivering initial 

services to claimants. During FY 2008, it took 

an average of 164 days to process initial claims 

under Part B. Therefore, in FY 2009 a goal of 

160 days was set. 

DEEOIC far exceeded this goal by 

taking an average of only 113 days to process 

initial claims under Part B of the EEOICPA 

during FY 2009.

The claims processing goal under Part E also was 

exceeded. During FY 2008, 284 days on average 

were needed to process initial claims. For FY 2009, 

a target of 195 days was set. Again, DEEOIC far 

exceeded this goal, as 159 days on average were 

needed to process initial claims under Part E of the 

EEOICPA during FY 2009. These results reflect 

DEEOIC’s success in clearing the backlog of older 

claims such that a “steady state” processing of 

current cases is now the norm.

Timely processing also extends to final decisions 

issued by DEEOIC’s FAB. The timeliness 

standards for both Part B and Part E claims are to 

complete final decisions within 180 days where 

there is a hearing and within 75 days where there 

is no hearing. In the processing of Part B and Part 

E final decisions through the efforts of the FAB, 92 

percent of Part B and Part E decisions in FY 2009 

were within the program standards, in excess of 

the goal of 88 percent.
56

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 2009. 

Timely and accurate medical bill processing is 

critical in the administration of the EEOICPA. In 

FY 2009, Multiple Surgeries and Maximum Unit 

pricing enhancements were implemented. In 

addition, DEEOIC avoided $8.1 million in costs 

during the year due to further improvements in 

the editing of bills. These savings were achieved 

without impacting on services to claimants.

By the end of FY 2009, the bill processing 

vendor had processed 254,000 EEOICPA bills and 

handled 41,236 telephone calls. Authorizations 

for medical treatment were processed in an 

average of 1.2 workdays and 98.3 percent of bills 

were processed within 28 days. Enrollment of 

4,115 new providers brought the total of enrolled 

providers to 110,148.

Program Evaluation

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG), Report Number #04-

09-002-04-437, November 12, 2008. In response to 

inquiries from several members of Congress and 

the general public, OIG conducted an evaluation 

to: a) determine if DOL issued claim decisions 

that complied with applicable law and regulation; 

and b) to assess whether DOL ensures that claims 

are adjudicated as promptly as possible and that 

claimants are kept informed. In its evaluation, 

OIG found that DOL’s decisions to accept or deny 

claims complied with applicable Federal law and 

regulations, and the decisions were based on the 

evidence provided by or obtained on behalf of 

claimants and followed a deliberative process 

with several layers of review to ensure that claims 

were substantiated or properly denied. OIG also 

found that DOL has made strides in reducing 

the processing time of claims for the portion of 

the process controlled by DOL. OIG assessed 

the validity of allegations from a former claims 

examiner that alleged that claims examiners had 

been directed to inappropriately deny claims, 

and determined that these allegations could not 

be corroborated. The full report, including the 

scope, methodology and full agency response, is 

available at: http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/

reports/oa/2009/04-09-002-04-437.pdf.

OIG made six recommendations to the 

former Assistant Secretary for the Employment 

Standards Administration (ESA) designed to 

reduce the time required to process claims and 

to better utilize Resource Centers, and increase 

contact with claimants to keep them informed 

of the status of their claims. ESA disagreed with 

the conclusions regarding the timeliness of the 

program in adjudicating claims, but did concur 

with most of OIG’s recommendations.

In response to OIG recommendations, 

DEEOIC compiled and posted statistics on its 

website displaying the overall average duration 

for certain types of claims filed under the 

EEOICPA, including those requiring a NIOSH 

dose reconstruction. Further, DEEOIC provided 

the Resource Centers with increased access to 

ECMS claims data so as to be able to better explain 

to claimants the status of their specific case and 

help them identify any steps they needed to 

take in order to support their claim. Procedures 

regarding how the Resource Centers explain Part 
57

E survivor eligibility to claimants were refined 

and DEEOIC directed Resource Center staff, 

where appropriate, to explain the alternative 

filing mechanism that is available for individuals 

seeking definitive answers regarding the cause of 

a worker’s death even though they do not seek 

benefits under the EEOICPA. Procedures were 

also implemented to simplify and expedite the 

processing of wage-loss and impairment claims 

under Part E of the EEOICPA and DEEOIC’s 

national office issued policy guidance allowing 

for quicker interaction with the Social Security 

Administration to obtain employment and wageloss information when needed to support a claim 

under the EEOICPA.

Litigation

DEEOIC strives in every case to administer the 

Energy program in accordance with the law and 

governing regulations. During FY 2009, one U.S. 

District Court and one U.S. Court of Appeals 

published decisions in cases arising under 

EEOICPA. Important points from these cases are 

summarized below.

DISTRICT COURT

In Barrie v. U.S. Department of Labor, 597 F.Supp.2d 

1235 (D.Colo. 2009), the plaintiff sought review of 

a FAB decision denying his claim for additional 

benefits under Part E of EEOICPA. The former 

employee of the Department of Energy’s 

Rocky Flats Plant in Golden, Colorado, sought 

benefits under Part E of EEOICPA for twentythree medical conditions allegedly caused by 

exposure to toxic substances at the Rocky Flats 

Plant. In its decision, FAB accepted his claim for 

chronic atrophic gastritis and denied his claims 

for benefits for each of the other conditions. 

FAB also awarded the plaintiff compensation 

for permanent impairment due to his accepted 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

chronic atrophic gastritis, which was reduced 

to reflect the amount of a state workers’ 

compensation settlement he had received for 

that same condition, but denied his claim for 

wage-loss due to chronic atrophic gastritis. The 

District Court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments 

that DEEOIC violated his due process rights by 

not providing him an opportunity for a hearing 

subsequent to the issuance of FAB’s decision and 

by not providing him with copies of documents 

relied upon by its medical specialists. The District 

Court affirmed the denial of his claim in regard to 

all of his other medical conditions except nephritis. 

The Court, however, found that DEEOIC had 

acted arbitrarily and capriciously by: (1) failing 

to exclude from the amount of the state workers’ 

compensation settlement to be coordinated 

with the plaintiff’s Part E award any portion of 

the settlement attributed to medical benefits; (2) 

denying the plaintiff’s claim for wage-loss by 

relying upon the opinion of a medical specialist 

that considered other medical evidence in the 

claim file that DEEOIC had decided should have 

no probative weight and failed to controvert 

the opinion of plaintiff’s attending physician 

regarding his inability to work; and (3) failing to 

address an inconsistent finding of a Department 

of Energy Physicians’ Panel that had reviewed the 

claim in denying the plaintiff’s Part D claim for 

nephritis. The District Court therefore remanded 

the matter to DEEOIC with instructions to 

determine the amount of the state workers’ 

compensation settlement attributable to medical 

benefits, and for further inquiry consistent with the 

order.
58

COURT OF APPEALS

In Opal Harger, et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor, 569 

F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009), the attorney representing 

multiple claimants in an ongoing action in United 

States District Court took an interlocutory appeal 

to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 

the District Court’s order denying his motion 

asserting an equitable lien for attorney’s fees 

for work he had performed, both prior to and 

independently from the District Court action, in 

connection with a successful petition he filed with 

the Department of Health and Human Services 

to designate a class of approximately 400 former 

employees at the Department of Energy facility 

at Hanford, Washington, as an addition to the 

Special Exposure Cohort under EEOICPA. In 

the order appealed, the District Court denied the 

motion on the ground that the United States had 

not waived its sovereign immunity regarding 

the requested equitable lien and also noted that, 

even if sovereign immunity were waived, the 

District Court could not award attorney’s fees 

under the “common fund” theory relied upon 

by the attorney because it had no control over the 

government funds at issue. The Ninth Circuit 

upheld the District Court’s order denying the 

motion for an equitable lien for attorney’s fees, 

finding that § 702 of the Administrative Procedure 

Act (5 U.S.C. § 702) did not constitute an express 

waiver by the United States of its sovereign 

immunity with respect to the fund created under 

EEOICPA for the payment of claims. As a result 

of its holding, the Ninth Circuit did not address 

whether the “common fund” doctrine was 

applicable in this case.
59

Energy Employees Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act 

Part B Part E 1

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2008 FY 2009

Number of Employees (FTE Staffing Used) 299 316 244 281

Administrative Expenditures 2 $ 50.5 M $ 50.6 M $ 56.1 M $ 65.2 M

Claims Created 7,794 7,179 8,373 7,509

Recommended Decisions 

 (Covered Applications) 12,928 10,979 14,066 11,726

Final Decisions (Covered Applications) 12,200 11,606 13,440 11,889

Number of Claims Approved (Final) 6,486 5,447 7,541 6,879

Total Lump Sum Compensation Payments 3 $484.4 M $437.5 M $456.7 M $428.7 M

Number of Medical Bill Payments 133,788 199,437 6,923 16,057

Total Medical Payments 4 $ 69.1 M $ 115.7 M $ 2.2 M $ 4.9 M

1 Part E became effective during FY 2005 (October 28, 2004). 

2 Includes Department of Labor expenditures only; Part B in FY 2008 excludes $55.4 million in funds apportioned to the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) for that agency’s responsibilities under EEOICPA (beginning in FY 2009, such funds are a direct appropriation to HHS), 

while Part E excludes funding for the Office of the Ombudsman ($0.8 million in FY 2008 and $0.8 million in FY 2009, respectively).

3 Excludes payments made by DOL for Department of Justice (DOJ) Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Section 5 claims. DOL serves 

as a pass through and utilizes the compensation fund established under EEOICPA for DOJ’s payments of $100,000 to qualifying Section 5 RECA 

claimants as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 7384u(d). These payments totaled $45.7 million in FY 2008 and $36.3 million in FY 2009, respectively.

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

payments made for Part E only.

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

61

 Page

A. FECA Tables A1 - A4 62

B. Black Lung Tables B1 - B6 66

C. LHWCA Tables C1 - C5 72

D. EEOICPA Tables D1 – D5 77

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
62

 Table A-1

Federal Employees’ Compensation Rolls

FY 2000 - FY 2009

(Cases at End-of-Year)

Fiscal Year

Roll Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

 

Total Periodic Roll 54,709 56,133 56,751 58,621 57,827 60,709 55,433 51,125 50,263 49,672

Long-Term Disability 48,870 50,409 51,092 53,099 52,377 55,257 49,910 46,258 45,604 45,162

Death 5,839 5,724 5,659 5,522 5,450 5,452 5,523 4,867 4,659 4,510
63

FECA Tables A1 — A2

Table A-2

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program

Summary of Claims Activity

FY 2000 - FY 2009

Fiscal Year

Claim Activity 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Incoming Cases

Cases Created 174,471 165,915 158,118 168,174 162,965 151,690 139,874 134,360 134,013 129,690

Traumatic 145,915 137,877 132,250 142,325 138,521 129,427 119,082 114,592 115,715 112,640

 No Lost Time 91,620 86,402 80,439 84,368 80,018 74,071 67,127 64,896 66,812 75,696

 Lost Time 54,295 51,475 51,811 57,957 58,503 55,356 51,955 49,696 48,903 36,944

Occupational Disease 28,406 27,869 25,739 25,747 24,320 22,114 20,592 19,633 18,190 16,951

Fatal Cases 150 169 129 102 124 149 200 135 108 99

Wage-Loss Claims Initiated 21,899 23,386 23,193 24,245 24,189 21,455 19,819 19,104 19,187 18,808

Hearings and Review

Total Requests for Hearing 6,992 6,875 6,820 6,751 8,132 6,757 6,241 6,556 6,584 6,438

Total Hearing Dispositions 7,418 6,599 6,272 6,743 7,682 6,961 7,424 7,581 6,789 7,085
64

Table A-3

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program Obligations

FY 2000 - FY 2009

($ thousands)

Fiscal Year

Type of 

Obligation 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total 

Obligations $2,170,247 $2,308,595 $2,418,364 $2,475,108 $2,568,390 $2,602,815 $2,553,930 $2,707,196 $2,800,284 $2,874,754

Total Benefits 2,078,715 2,199,276 2,307,942 2,345,472 2,434,609 2,476,479 2,418,796 2,563,055 2,657,634 2,732,577

 Compensation 

 Benefits 1,403,154 1,453,740 1,509,275 1,556,845 1,600,501 1,664,405 1,621,357 1,684,248 1,736,649 1,747,650

 

 Medical 

 Benefits 548,596 617,414 667,797 658,121 703,571 672,006 668,205 743,124 781,594 847,373

 

 Survivor 

 Benefits 126,965 128,122 130,870 130,506 130,537 140,068 129,234 135,683 139,391 137,554

 

Total 

Administrative 

Expenditures 91,532 109,319 110,422 129,636 133,781 126,336 135,134 144,141 142,650 142,177

 Salaries and 

 Expenses 70,634 78,971 81,210 86,358 86,253 86,811 88,435 90,113 89,416 90,049

 Fair Share 20,898 30,348 29,212 43,278 47,528 39,525 46,699 54,028 53,234 52,128
65

FECA Tables A3 — A4

Table A-4

Federal Employees’ Compensation Program Chargeback Costs, 

by Major Federal Agency

CBY 2000 - CBY 2009

($ thousands)

Chargeback Year 1

Federal Agency 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total Costs $2,024,634 $2,129,097 $2,219,448 $2,323,288 $2,339,782 $2,334,194 $2,440,711 $2,494,096 $2,572,864 $2,669,115

U.S. Postal 

Service 666,310 720,518 785,199 846,876 852,945 840,141 884,078 924,138 978,629 1,055,221

Department of 

the Navy 241,585 246,881 248,250 245,461 245,145 237,791 244,318 244,037 242,440 240,004

Department of 

the Army 166,989 169,219 174,832 181,298 177,250 174,660 180,248 178,993 179,503 181,775

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 143,221 145,909 151,612 157,315 155,391 156,170 164,091 166,087 175,637 179,922

Department of 

Homeland Security N/A N/A N/A 83,975 121,089 138,342 156,734 158,529 161,070 164,611

Department of 

the Air Force 128,134 134,106 132,538 135,509 129,229 124,516 126,663 130,298 131,059 131,301

Department 

of Justice 83,873 91,197 95,620 66,131 74,011 80,090 89,156 94,395 98,825 104,772

Department 

of Transportation 96,936 99,556 101,716 94,682 92,659 92,687 92,830 93,609 97,931 99,251

Department 

of Agriculture 64,882 66,750 69,563 72,312 69,245 68,681 70,185 70,802 72,869 73,670

Department of 

Defense 64,797 64,761 63,888 65,429 63,816 62,996 65,460 62,630 60,737 63,051

All Other 

Agencies 367,907 390,201 396,230 374,299 359,003 358,120 366,948 370,578 374,164 375,537

1 A year for chargeback purposes is from July 1 through June 30.
66

Table B-1

Part C Black Lung Claims Adjudications

at the District Director Level

FY 2009

Type of Claim PDO’s Issued 1 Approval Rate

Trust Fund 543

Approved 95 17.50%

Denied 448

Responsible Operators 3,058

Approved 397 12.98%

Denied 2,661

Total Decisions 3,601

Total Approved 492 13.66%

Total Denied 3,109

1 PDO is “Proposed Decision and Order”.
67

Black Lung Tables B1 — B2

Table B-2

Distribution of Part C 

Black Lung Claims and Disbursements, by State

FY 2009

Total Claims MBO Total Benefits

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

Alabama 34,664 30 734 $6,071

Alaska 153 0 8 66

Arizona 2,096 5 108 893

Arkansas 3,836 6 133 1,100

California 6,479 7 185 1,530

Colorado 7,075 6 328 2,713

Connecticut 1,003 0 47 388

Delaware 785 1 47 388

District of Columbia 285 0 10 83

Florida 11,967 38 643 5,319

Georgia 1,685 3 142 1,175

Hawaii 17 0 1 8

Idaho 250 0 12 66

Illinois 31,609 26 875 7,238

Indiana 18,068 29 601 4,970

Iowa 5,152 3 164 1,357

Kansas 2,181 1 43 356

Kentucky 94,820 534 4,198 34,725

Louisiana 353 0 14 116

Maine 45 0 4 33

Maryland 6,697 14 294 2,432

Massachusetts 240 1 14 116

Michigan 10,521 9 318 2,630

Minnesota 145 0 4 33

Mississippi 368 1 20 165

Missouri 4,660 2 138 1,142

Montana 855 1 23 190

Nebraska 130 0 4 33

Nevada 440 2 31 256

New Hampshire 27 0 5 41

New Jersey 4,316 7 206 1,741

New Mexico 2,434 1 90 744

New York 4,032 4 149 1,233

North Carolina 3,589 19 283 2,341

North Dakota 159 0 3 25

Ohio 54,197 74 2,137 17,677

Oklahoma 3,800 5 107 885

Oregon 627 0 23 190

Pennsylvania 137,700 359 8,065 66,712

Rhode Island 40 0 2 16

South Carolina 965 8 98 811

South Dakota 53 0 6 50

Tennessee 21,513 81 879 7,271

Texas 1,757 3 86 711

Utah 4,163 9 202 1,671

Vermont 50 0 4 33

Virginia 44,961 313 2,992 24,749

Washington 1,594 3 50 414

West Virginia 113,639 527 6,139 50,781

Wisconsin 459 1 23 190

Wyoming 2,637 0 120 993

All Other 449 1 14 116

TOTAL 649,740 2,134 30,826 $254,987

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

2 Active Medical Benefits Only (MBO) claims as of 9/30/09.

3 Active claims in payment status, excluding MBO claims, as of 9/30/09.

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.
68

Table B-3

Part C Black Lung Claims, by Class of Beneficiary

FY 2000 - FY 2009 1

Number of Beneficiaries 2

Class of Beneficiary 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Primary Beneficiaries:

Miners 22,568 18,248 16,395 14,773 13,398 12,012 10,857 9,744 8,654 7,699

Widows 39,053 35,660 34,236 32,615 30,810 29,110 27,366 25,556 23,690 21,913

Others 1,497 1,467 1,221 1,238 1,247 1,248 1,258 1,241 1,230 1,214

Total Primary Beneficiaries 63,118 55,375 51,852 48,626 45,455 42,370 39,481 36,541 33,574 30,826

Dependents of Primary 

Beneficiaries:

Dependents of Miners 17,978 13,924 12,432 11,131 10,020 9,004 8,088 7,205 6,442 5,726

Dependents of Widows 1,306 1,123 1,077 1,052 1,006 944 874 840 777 723

Dependents of Others 508 108 386 353 238 213 146 140 132 122

Total Dependents 19,792 15,155 13,895 12,536 11,264 10,161 9,108 8,185 7,351 6,571

Total, All Beneficiaries 82,910 70,530 65,747 61,162 56,719 52,531 48,589 44,726 40,925 37,397

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.
69

Black Lung Tables B3 — B4

Table B-4

Department of Labor Part C Black Lung Benefits Program Obligations

FY 2000 - FY 2009

($ thousands)

Fiscal Year

Type of 

Obligation 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Total 

Obligations $1,013,593 $1,016,994 $1,034,096 $1,046,303 $1,053,246 $1,061,698 $1,060,006 $1,068,295 $1,070,958 $7,152,627

Total 

Benefits 1 422,656 396,928 384,234 370,389 346,864 329,933 307,067 291,310 273,232 254,987

 Income 

 Benefits 2 350,266 336,813 320,039 307,371 292,555 279,965 265,365 252,020 235,347 221,298

 Medical 

 Benefits 3 72,390 60,116 64,196 63,018 54,309 49,968 41,702 39,290 37,885 33,689

Administrative 

Costs 4 49,820 52,252 54,273 55,332 55,803 56,872 57,975 59,772 58,257 57,712

Interest 

Charges 5 541,117 567,814 595,589 620,582 650,579 674,894 694,964 717,214 739,469 0

Bond 

Payments 6 - - - - - - - - - 341,939

Repayable 

Advances 7 490,000 505,000 465,000 525,000 497,000 446,000 445,000 426,000 426,000 6,497,989

Cumulative 

Debt 8 $6,748,557 $7,253,557 $7,718,557 $8,243,557 $8,740,557 $9,186,557 $9,631,557 $10,057,557 $10,483,557 $6,158,245

1 Excludes collections from responsible mine operators for benefits paid by Trust 

Fund on an interim basis, refunds for OWCP administrative costs paid, and other 

miscellaneous reimbursements.

2 Monthly and retroactive benefit payments.

3 Includes diagnostic and treatment benefits, and reimbursements to the UMWA 

Health and Retirement Funds.

4 Administrative costs include support for DCMWC, Office of the Inspector 

General, Office of the Solicitor, Office of Administrative Law Judges, and 

Benefits Review Board within DOL, and reimbursements to the Department of 

Treasury and the Social Security Administration.

5 Interest charges on repayable advances to the Trust Fund from the Department 

of Treasury.

6 Scheduled repayments of principal and interest on zero-coupon bonds issued 

to refinance the BLDTF debt as mandated under the Emergency Economic 

Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA).

7 Advances from the Department of Treasury. FY 2009 is a one-time nonrepayable appropriation under the EESA.

8

Shows the cumulative debt of the Trust Fund to the Department of Treasury. In 

FY 2009, this includes principal being repaid by the proceeds of the zero-coupon 

bonds issued under EESA.

Note: Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
70

Table B-5

Monthly Part C Black Lung Benefit Rates

1973 - 2009

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

1/1/84-12/31/841 317.10 475.60 554.90 634.20

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 1,005.50 1,149.10

1/1/07-12/31/07 584.40 876.50 1,022.60 1,168.70

1/1/08-12/31/08 599.00 898.40 1,048.10 1,197.90

1/1/09-12/31/09 616.30 924.50 1,078.50 1,232.60

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.
71

Black Lung Tables B5 — B6

Funding and Disbursements 

of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

FY 2009

($ thousands)

Table B-6

Month

10/08

11/08

12/08

01/09

02/09

03/09

04/09

05/09

06/09

07/09

08/09

09/09

Totals

Coal

Excise

Tax

Revenue

Treasury

Advances Reimburse2

Income

Benefits3

Medical Benefits

Diagnostic Treatment4 Total

Total

Benefits

Admin.

Costs

Interest 

on

Advances

Payments 

to

Treasury Total

$6,497,9891

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$6,497,989

$14,132

52,690

50,215

48,999

59,061

47,780

53,422

73,525

61,126

69,304

57,619

57,008

$644,881

$1,010

629

610

395

1,174

650

1,119

514

1,144

565

735

616

$9,161

$6,513,131

53,319

50,825

49,394

60,235

48,430

54,541

74,039

62,270

69,869

58,354

57,624

$7,152,032

$18,973

18,377

18,944

18,185

18,834

18,462

18,790

18,371

18,025

18,180

18,230

17,927

$221,298

$330

316

286

172

303

269

364

306

243

413

294

415

$3,712

$2,617

2,203

3,062

2,102

2,512

2,318

3,046

2,412

2,148

2,784

2,157

2,618

$29,978

$21,920

20,896

22,291

20,459

21,649

21,050

22,199

21,089

20,416

21,377

20,681

20,960

$254,987

$4,471

4,414

4,471

2,708

5,956

2,409

7,774

5,373

5,574

4,856

2,773

6,860

$57,712

$0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

$0

$6,497,9895

0

0

0

0

0

126,5266

0

0

0

0

215,4136

$6,839,928

$6,524,380

25,310

26,763

23,239

27,605

23,459

156,499

26,462

25,990

26,233

23,454

243,234

$7,152,627

 Funding Disbursements

1 One-time non-repayable appropriation from the Department of Treasury for 

BLDTF debt refinancing under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008 (EESA).

2 Reimbursements include collections from RMOs, and fines, penalties, and 

interest.

3 Includes monthly and retroactive benefit payments.

4 Treatment expenditures include reimbursements to the United Mine Workers’ 

Health and Retirement Funds.

5 Includes accrued interest, repayment of debt principal, and a premium payment 

as mandated under the EESA.

6 Repayment of principal and interest on principal for the zero-coupon bonds 

issued to refinance the BLDTF debt under the EESA.
72

Table C-1

Total Industry Compensation 

and Benefit Payments Under LHWCA1

CY 1999 - CY 2008 2

($ thousands)

Calendar Year

Payments By: 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Self-Insured 

Employers $283,991 $278,952 $307,708 $310,940 $309,843 $322,520 $325,694 $368,744 $325,544 $340,336

Insurance Carriers 232,778 249,671 236,726 246,603 262,753 278,887 325,027 367,625 456,773 504,348

Total Payments $516,769 $528,623 $544,434 $557,543 $572,596 $601,407 $650,721 $736,369 $782,317 $844,684

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.
73

LHWCA Tables C1 — C2

Table C-2

National Average Weekly Wage (NAWW) and Corresponding 

Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates and Annual Adjustments 

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

 Maximum Minimum Annual Adjustment

 Period NAWW Payable Payable (% Increase in NAWW)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/01/83-9/30/84 274.17 548.341 137.09 4.51

10/01/84-9/30/85 289.83 579.66 144.92 5.712

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10/01/07-9/30/08 580.18 1,160.36 290.09 4.12

10/01/08-9/30/09 600.31 1,200.62 300.16 3.47

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).
74

Table C-3

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Expenditures1

FY 2000 - FY 2009

($ 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.

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

2008 126,933 116,894 1,673 2,330 6,035 4,533 9,960 9,104 630 0 226 582

2009 132,688 121,203 1,656 2,832 6,996 4,378 10,094 9,197 590 0 306 550

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
75

LHWCA Tables C3 — C4

Table C-4

LHWCA and DCCA Special Funds’ Assessments1

CY 2000 - CY 2009

($ 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.

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 4,185 CY 2006

2008 124,000 495,148 CY 2007 8,500 4,758 CY 2007

2009 125,000 564,798 CY 2008 11,500 3,598 CY 2008

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.
76

LHWCA Table C5

Table C-5

Summary of Case Processing Activities Under LHWCA1

FY 2000 - FY 2009

Fiscal Year

Adjudication Level

and Case Status 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

District Offices

Pending Inventory of Cases 8,675 6,489 7,391 5,495 6,051 6,375 6,338 8,563 4 7,7266 8,075

OALJ

Carryover from Previous FY 3,668 3,562 3,388 2,980 2,517 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 

New Cases 3,566 3,500 3,276 3,036 2,926 2,763 2,413 2,614 2,657 2,696 

Total Docket 7,234 7,062 6,664 6,016 5,443 5,118 4,731 4,598 4,780 4,864 

(Dispositions) 3,672 3,674 3,529 3,499 3,088 2,800 2,747 2,475 2,612 2,540 

Pending Inventory 3,562 3,388 2,980 3 2,5177 2,355 2,318 1,984 2,123 2,168 2,324 

BRB

Carryover from Previous FY 326 295 248 208 267 222 211 182 152 134

New Cases 423 317 260 332 297 288 248 241 226 229

Total Docket 749 612 508 540 564 510 459 423 378 363 

(Dispositions) 467 384 319 282 355 304 288 282 260 256

Pending Inventory 295 2 248 2 208 2 267 2 222 2 211 2 182 2 152 2 134 2 114 2

1 Beginning in FY 1988, DCCA cases are excluded from DLHWC’s District 

Offices’ inventory as administration of these cases was delegated to the District 

of Columbia government effective July 18, 1988. Case processing and 

adjudication activities at the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and 

Benefits Review Board (BRB) levels continue to include both LHWCA and 

DCCA cases.

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

3 Includes dispositions of Boone 33(g) cases.

4 The increase in pending inventory compared to FY 2006 was due to the large 

number of new Defense Base Act cases created in the second quarter of FY 

2007. The total number of new cases increased by 42 percent during FY 2007.
77

EEOICPA Table D1 Part B

Table D-1 Part B

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 20091

Case Status/Claims Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2009 67,604 100,499

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2009 53,201 82,991

Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) 4 46,692 69,061

 Final Approved 26,607 40,213

 Final Denied 20,085 28,848

Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5 1,259 2,387

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 266 665

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 993 1,722

Completed Initial Processing -

Referred to NIOSH 3,158 7,157

Pending Initial Processing In District Office 6 2,092 4,386

Lump Sum Compensations 24,667 38,011

Total Payment Amounts $3,080,139,018

1 Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception 

through September 30, 2009.

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.
78

Table D-1 Part E

Status of All EEOICPA Applications at the End of FY 20091

Case Status/Claims Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2009 58,798 82,957

Total Covered Applications Received-Program Inception

Through 9/30/2009 48,087 55,245

Final Decisions Completed by Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) 4 40,039 42,303

 Final Approved 21,748 23,025

 Final Denied 18,291 19,278

Recommended Decisions by District Offices 5 1,572 1,985

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Approve 437 663

 Outstanding Recommended Decision to Deny 1,135 1,322

Completed Initial Processing - Referred to NIOSH 1,778 2,226

Pending Initial Processing In District Office 6 4,698 8,731

Compensation Payments (Unique Cases and Claims) 15,466 16,297

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $1,718,240,306

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 9,070 9,739

Total Lump Sum Payment Amts. $1,112,126,796

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,564 1,925

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts. $70,064,082

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 6,513 6,513

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $536,049,428

1 Statistics show the status of all applications filed from program inception 

through September 30, 2009.

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.
79

EEOICPA Tables D1 Part E — D2 Part B

Table D-2 Part B

Processing Activity

 During FY 2009 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims1

Processing Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2009 4,873 7,179

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2009 4,436 6,662

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2009 8,046 4 11,606

Final Approved 3,475 5,447

Final Denied 4,571 6,159

Modification Orders in FY 2009 281 303

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2009 7,649 10,979

Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 3,147 4,911

Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 4,502 6,068

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2009 3,798 5,126

Lump Sum Compensation Payments in FY 2009 3,314 5,286

ECMS-Generated Payments 3,265 5,220

Non ECMS-Generated Payments 49 66

Remands 245 369

1 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2009 only, therefore the 

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

received during FY 2009. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims 

received prior to FY 2009).

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 2009.
80

1 Activity statistics capture actions made during FY 2009 only, therefore the 

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

received during FY 2009. (Many activities recorded occurred on cases/claims 

received prior to FY 2009).

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).

Table D-2 Part E

Processing Activity 

During FY 2009 on All EEOICPA Cases/Claims1

Processing Activity Case 2 Claim 3

Total Cases/Claims Received-FY 2009 5,762 7,509

Total Cases/Claims (Covered Applications) Received-FY 2009 5,074 5,687

Final Decisions by FAB Offices in FY 2009 11,445 4 11,889

Final Approved 6,691 6,879

Final Denied 4,754 5,010

Modification Orders in FY 2009 378 386

Recommended Decisions by District Offices in FY 2009 11,302 11,726

Recommended Decision Only, to Approve 6,542 6,735

Recommended Decision Only, to Deny 4,760 4,991

Referrals to NIOSH in FY 2009 2,089 2,199

Compensation Payments in FY 2009 (Unique Cases and Claims) 4,721 4,881

ECMS-Generated Payments 4,654 4,809

Non ECMS-Generated Payments 67 72

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $428,723,354 5

Lump Sum Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 1,713 1,855

Total Compensation Payment Amts. $199,981,250

Wage Loss Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 439 505

Total Wage Loss Payment Amts. $20,579,144

Impairment Allocations (Unique Cases and Claims) 2,783 2,783

Total Impairment Payment Amts. $197,244,038

Remands 378 452 

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 2009.

5 Total includes compensation payments of $10,918,922 that were generated by 

Energy Case Management System.
81

EEOICPA Tables D2 Part E — D3 Part B

Table D-3 Part B

EEOICPA Cases With Approved Decisions and Payments 

by Catergory, Program Inception Through September 30, 2009

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 6,414 24.1% 9,883 $318,192 10.3%

Special Exposure Cohort Cancer (CN) 9,765 36.7% 15,564 1,444,220 46.9%

Dose Reconstructed Cancer (CN) 6,686 25.1% 9,482 993,445 32.3%

Beryllium Disease (CBD) 4 1,883 7.1% 2,492 278,180 9.0%

Beryllium Sensitivity-Only (BS) 1,535 5.8% N/A N/A N/A

Silicosis (CS) 80 0.3% 97 11,350 0.4%

Multiple Conditions 5 222 0.8% 247 32,700 1.1%

TOTAL 26,585 100.0% 37,765 $3,078,087 6 100.0%

1 There is not a direct correlation between number of approved cases and number 

of paid claimants for two reasons: (1) more than one claimant can receive 

payment on a single approved case, and (2) some cases were approved prior to 

9/30/2009, but payments were not issued.

2 Represents total lump sum compensation payments from EEOIC program 

inception through September 30, 2009.

3 RECA cases are not counted in any other category of this table.

4 Cases approved for both CBD and BS are counted in the CBD category, only.

5 Cases counted in the Multiple Conditions category were approved for CN and 

CBD, or CN and CS, or CBD and CS, or CN and BS, or CS and BS.

6 Total compensation paid does not include 11cases that could not be attributed to 

the designated categories.
82

Table D-4 Part B

EEOICPA Cases With Final Decision to Deny,

Program Inception Through September 30, 2009

Reason for Denial Number of Cases 1

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

Vendor During a Covered Time Period 4,609

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 590

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part B of EEOICPA2 9,536

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

is Less Than 50 Percent 14,066

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement 5,429

Total 34,230

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.
83

EEOICPA Tables D4 Part B — D4 Part E

Table D-4 Part E

EEOICPA Cases With Final Decision to Deny,

Program Inception Through September 30, 2009

Reason for Denial Number of Cases 1

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

Vendor During a Covered Time Period 3,191

Alleged Survivor Not an Eligible Beneficiary 7,230

Claimed Condition Not Covered Under Part E of EEOICPA2 151

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

is Less Than 50 Percent 5,436

Medical Evidence is Insufficient to Establish Entitlement 12,704

Total 28,712

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.
84

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 Conditions,

EEOIC Program Inception Through September 30, 2009

Percentage of All Denials

Non-Covered Medical Condition For This Condition 1

Other Lung Conditions 22 %

Heart Condition/Failure/Attack/Hypertension 11

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease & Emphysema 9

Asbestosis 6

Renal Condition or Disorder (Kidney Failure, Kidney Stones) 6

Hearing Loss 3

Benign Tumors, Polyps, Skin Spots 3

Diabetes 3

Neurological Disorder 2

Thyroid Conditions (e.g., Hypothyroidism) 2

Anemia 1

Back or Neck Problems 1

Parkinson’s Disease 1

Psychological Conditions 1

All Other Non-Covered Conditions (Each Less Than 1%) or Other (Not Listed) 22

No Condition Reported on Claim Form or Blank Condition Type 8

EEOICPA Table D5 Part B

86

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

200 Constitution Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20210

202-693-0031

www.dol.gov/owcp

Director, Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs

Gary A. Steinberg, Acting

Deputy Director, Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs

Sharon Tyler, Acting

Director, Division of Planning,

Policy and Standards

Cecily Rayburn

Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (www.dol.gov/owcp/dfec)

Douglas C. Fitzgerald, Director

Antonio Rios, Deputy Director

Division of Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation (www.dol.gov/owcp/dcmwc)

Steven D. Breeskin, Director

Michael McClaran, Deputy Director

Division of Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation (www.dol.gov/owcp/dlhwc)

Miranda Chiu, Acting Director

Division of Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation (www.dol.gov/owcp/energy)

Rachel P. Leiton, Director

Christy A. Long, Deputy Director

LuAnn Kressley, Chief, Final Adjudication Branch

Division of Information Technology 

Management and Services

Stephen Cohen, Director

Office 

Directory
87

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
88

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

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
89

Office Directory

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)
90

Pikeville Black Lung District Office

Roger Belcher, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

164 Main Street, Suite 508

Pikeville, KY 41501-1182

606-218-9300 (Toll-Free 1-800-366-4599)

Mt. Sterling Black Lung Sub-District Office

Vicky C. Ashby, Assistant District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DCMWC

402 Campbell Way

Mt. Sterling, KY 40353

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

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Paducah Site)

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)
91

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

Building 53 - Suite D2212

One Denver Center

Denver, CO 80202-0603

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

Denver Energy District Office

Janet Kapsin, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DEEOIC

1999 Broadway, Suite 1120

Denver, CO 80202-5711

720-264-3060 (Toll-Free 1-888-805-3389)
92

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

Marco Adame, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

401 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 720

Long Beach, CA 90802

562-980-3577

Honolulu Longshore Sub-District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DLHWC

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 5-135

Post Office Box 50209

Honolulu, HI 96850

808-541-1983

Seattle FECA District Office

Marcus Tapia, District Director

U.S. Department of Labor

OWCP/DFEC

1111 Third Avenue, Suite 650

Seattle, WA 98101-3212

206-398-8100

Seattle Longshore District Office

R. Todd Bruininks, Acting 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)
Office Directory

EEOICPA Resource Center Contract Facilities:

(Idaho Falls Site) 

Joe Krachenfels, 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)

Joseph Poole, 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

93