1 

U.S. Department of Labor Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Division of Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation 

Washington, DC 20210 

RELEASE – TRANSMISSION OF FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE 

MANUAL VERSION 5.1: 

EEOICPA TRANSMITTAL NO. 21-02 September 20, 2021 

EXPLANATION OF MATERIAL TRANSMITTED:

The Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) is issuing this 

Transmittal to notify staff of the publication of Federal (EEOICPA) Procedure Manual (PM)

Version 5.1 (v5.1) which replaces v5.0, effective the date of publication of this transmittal.

Following are the content edits that make up PM v5.1: 

• As a result of internal DEEOIC role changes, the roles of Senior Claims Examiner (SrCE),

Medical Scheduler (MS), and Payee Change Assistant (PCA) have been removed throughout

multiple chapters of the PM. Each has been replaced with their new corresponding role,

specifically, Claims Examiner Specialist (CES) and Claims Assistant (CA), as necessary.

• Multiple Chapters throughout the PM have been updated to remove outdated references to

Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) Claims Examiner (CE).

• Chapter 2 – The EEOICPA

o Ch. 2.3a has been edited to organizationally identify the Medical Benefits Adjudication

Branch (MBAU) as the National District Office. The language in v5.0 previously read:

a. District Offices (DO). DEEOIC has four DOs, which are located in Cleveland,

Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; and Seattle, Washington. Each

DO is managed by a District Director (DD), who reports to the National

Administrator of Field Operations (NAFO.) Exhibit 2-1 contains a list of

addresses, telephone numbers, and fax numbers for the DOs.)

It has been updated in v5.1 to: 

a. District Offices (DO). DEEOIC has four claim adjudication DOs, which are

located in Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; and

Seattle, Washington. Each DO is managed by a District Director (DD), who

reports to the National Administrator of Field Operations (NAFO.) Exhibit 2-1

contains a list of addresses, telephone numbers, and fax numbers for the DOs.)

The Medical Benefits Adjudication Unit (MBAU) is located in Washington D.C.
2

(National District Office) and is managed by the Chief, Branch of Medical 

Benefits (BMB). 

o Ch. 2.4b(5)(c) has been edited to organizationally identify the Medical Benefits

Adjudication Branch (MBAU) as a National District Office. The language in v5.0

previously read:

(c) The Medical Benefits Adjudication Unit (MBAU) provides medical benefits 

adjudication and decisions regarding requests for medical care or equipment that 

requires preauthorization.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

(c) The Medical Benefits Adjudication Unit (MBAU) provides medical benefits 

adjudication and decisions regarding requests for medical care or equipment that 

requires preauthorization. The MBAU is located at the National District Office in 

Washington D.C.

• Chapter 6 – Processing Mail

o Ch. 6.5d(3) has been updated to reflect new procedures for the handling of Privacy Act 

requests. The language in v5.0 previously read:

(3) Privacy Act. The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a, applies to an individual 

seeking information about him or herself. The law provides an individual the right to 

access records maintained in federal systems of record (e.g., claim files) that are 

retrievable by his or her name or other personal identifiers. 

Examples of Privacy Act requests received by DEEOIC include requests for a copy of a 

case file or a specific document from a case file (e.g., CMC report, SSA records). 

Privacy Act requests may be submitted by claimants, an AR or authorized third parties. 

(a) Handling document requests. In instances when a claimant, AR or 

authorized third party is seeking a copy of the entire case file record, or a 

specific document in a case file, the CE is to: 

(i) Access ECS to determine if the case file has an imaged component. 

(ii) Copy relevant documents from the paper case file and/or OIS. 

(iii) Determine what information, if any, needs to be redacted. 

(iv) Before copies are sent, the CE/FAB Hearing Representative (HR) 

reviews the case file and the redacted copies, and completes a 

Data Release Form (Exhibit 6-2). The CE/HR then provides a 

copy of the redacted case file to the appropriate Supervisory CE, 
3

Senior CE, or HR for review to ensure the documents are 

appropriately redacted. A cover letter outlining the claimant’s 

appeal rights is to be included. The CE/HR is only permitted to 

release documents that have been reviewed, and whose release has 

been approved by the appropriate Disclosure Officer or his/her 

designee. The Data Release Form is to be bronzed into the 

appropriate case record in OIS.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

(3) Privacy Act. The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a, applies to an individual 

seeking information about him or herself. The law provides an individual the right to 

access records maintained in federal systems of record (e.g., claim files) that are 

retrievable by his or her name or other personal identifiers. 

Examples of Privacy Act requests received by DEEOIC include requests for a paper or 

electronic copy of a case file, or a specific document from a case file (e.g., CMC report, 

SSA records). Privacy Act requests may be submitted by claimants, an AR or authorized 

third parties. 

(a) Handling Privacy Act requests. The CE is to ensure the request is 

properly indexed in OIS, and access ECS to determine if the case file has 

an imaged component. If the case is not fully imaged, he/she requests that 

the case file be recalled for imaging. The CE then sends an email to 

zzOWCP-DEEOIC-PA-REQUESTS-ALL as notification that a Privacy Act 

request has been received. This is required for tracking purposes and to 

initiate the start of the review. The initial and final reviewers will 

typically be contractor employees within the email group.

(b) Initial Review. When the initial reviewer receives the email notification, 

he or she documents the request on the Privacy Act Request Tracking 

Worksheet and initiates review. If the reviewer has questions or needs to 

clarify the request, he or she contacts the CE via email. 

The documents to be copied are selected in the OIS case file, and all 

documents are then reviewed and redacted, as appropriate. The reviewer 

then completes and signs the DEEOIC Data Release Form, and uploads 

the form into the OIS case record. He or she then notifies the final 

reviewer via email at zzOWCP-DEEOIC-PA-REQUESTS-ALL.

(c) Final Review. The final reviewer reviews the document (s) to ensure they 

are responsive to the Privacy Act request, and ensures any redactions are 

appropriate. Upon completion, he or she signs the DEEOIC Data Release 

Form and uploads the form into the OIS case record. He or she then 

drafts a Privacy Act response letter and emails the relevant documents to 
4

the Imaging Process Operator and Lead General Clerk that the documents 

are ready to be printed and mailed.

(d) Printing and Mailing the Response. Imaging Process Operator or Lead 

General Clerk saves the document(s) to an encrypted CD and mails the 

CD, along with the Privacy Act response letter, to the requestor. On the 

same day, he or she mails a separate letter to the requestor providing the 

encryption password to access the files on the CD. Both letters are to be 

saved to the OIS case record. Once the letters are imaged into OIS, the 

CE will see the documents as “unreviewed” and know that the Privacy Act 

request response is complete. The CE then selects “Review Complete” in 

OIS for the response letters.

• Chapter 7 – Case Creation

o The final paragraph of Ch. 7.5 has been updated to reflect how staff can locate Energy 

Compensation System (ECS) case create Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs.) The 

language in v5.0 previously read:

For a systematic guide to ECS case create procedures, refer to the Claim Form Entry 

and Initial Review (Red Pane Review) instructions located in the ECS Procedures folder 

available to DO staff on the shared drive.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

For a systematic guide to ECS case create procedures, refer to the Claim Form Entry 

and Initial Review (Red Pane Review) section of the ECS Standard Operating Procedures 

(SOPs) available to staff.

• Chapter 11 – Initial Development

o Ch. 11.9 has been edited to remove the listing of letters and forms currently available in 

CCAT. The language in v5.0 previously read:

9. Correspondence Creation and Tracking System (CCAT.) CCAT is an internal 

form and correspondence generator within ECS that is used to generate certain 

standardized forms and correspondence letters. The system populates various fields with 

information already contained within ECS, such as names and addresses, while allowing 

the user to input other claim-specific information. In addition, CCAT also contains 

samples of these forms and letters. 

a. Below, in alphabetical order, are the forms and letters currently available 

in CCAT: 

(1) Alternative Filing Acknowledgement Letter 
5

(2) AR Acknowledgement Letter 

(3) Change of Address Acknowledgement Letter 

(4) Claim Acknowledgement Letter 

(5) DEEOIC Case Transfer Sheet 

(6) DME Authorization Letter

(7) EE-8 and EN-8 Smoking History Questionnaire 

(8) EE-9 and EN-9 Race/Ethnicity Questionnaire 

(9) EE-10 and EN-10 Claim for Additional Wage-Loss and/or 

Impairment Benefits under the EEOICPA 

(10) EE-11A and EN-11A Form (Impairment) 

(11) EE-16 and EN-16 Form 

(12) Hearing Request Acknowledgement Letter 

(13) Hearing Transcript Letter 

(14) HHC Authorization Letter 

(15) Home Hospice Authorization Letter 

(16) Letter to DOJ for RECA Award Confirmation 

(17) Lump Sum Payment Acknowledgement Letter 

(18) Medical Travel Reimbursement Authorization Letter 

(19) Not Claiming Impairment and/or Wage-Loss Letter 

(20) Physician Letter 

(21) Rehabilitative Service Authorization Letter 

(22) Residential Care Facility Authorization Letter 

(23) Review of Written Record Acknowledgement Letter 

(24) Untimely Hearing Request Letter 
6

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

9. Correspondence Creation and Tracking System (CCAT.) CCAT is an internal 

form and correspondence generator within ECS that is used to generate certain 

standardized forms and correspondence letters. The system populates various fields with 

information already contained within ECS, such as names and addresses, while allowing 

the user to input other claim-specific information. In addition, CCAT also contains 

samples of these forms and letters. A complete list of letters and forms currently 

available can be viewed in CCAT. 

• Chapter 13 – Establishing Covered Employment

o Ch. 13.3 has been edited to expand guidance regarding the role of Form EE-3 and 

additional employment evidence in claim development, and to provide clarification on 

steps taken when no Form EE-3 is received. The language in v5.0 previously read:

3. Comparing Initial Claimed Employment to the Covered Facilities Database. The 

first step the CE takes in assessing covered employment is determining which claimed 

employment listed on the EE-3 Employment History form corresponds with a covered 

AWE, Beryllium Vendor, or DOE facility. The CE does this by comparing what the 

claimant has communicated on the EE-3 with the facilities identified on the DOE 

EEOICPA Covered Facilities Database. The link to access this database can be found 

on the DEEOIC website. It can also be found in the EPOD, which is referenced in 

paragraph 6 of this chapter. 

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

3. Comparing Initial Claimed Employment to the Covered Facilities Database. The 

first step the CE takes in assessing covered employment is determining which claimed 

employment listed on the EE-3 Employment History form corresponds with a covered 

AWE, Beryllium Vendor, or DOE facility. The CE does this by comparing what the 

claimant has communicated on the EE-3 with the facilities identified on the DOE 

EEOICPA Covered Facilities Database. DEEOIC staff may find the link to access this 

database on the DEEOIC public website. Staff may also find information relating to 

covered facilities by accessing the EPOD. In the absence of a completed EE-3, the CE 

may perform their comparative analysis using other written submissions from the 

claimant describing the employee’s work history. If a claimant has not provided any 

employment information for review, the CE must obtain a completed EE-3 or other 

written submission from the claimant discussing the employee’s work history at a covered 

facility.

• Chapter 21 – Impairment Ratings

o Ch. 21.4d(2) has been updated to reflect the credentialing change for impairment rating 

physicians. The language in v5.0 previously read:
7

(2) Rating Physician Qualification. A physician who performs an impairment 

evaluation must satisfy certain criteria. In order for a CE to accept an 

impairment rating, the rating physician must hold a valid medical license and 

Board certification/eligibility in his/her field of expertise (e.g., toxicology, 

pulmonary, neurology, occupational medicine, etc.). In addition, the physician 

must meet at least one of the following criteria: certified by the American Board 

of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME); possess knowledge and experience 

in using the AMA’s Guides; or possess the requisite professional background and 

work experience to conduct such ratings. 

(a) A CE may determine the qualifications of the physician upon receipt of a 

letter or a resume demonstrating that the physician has a medical license 

and meets the requisite program requirements. There is no need to submit 

copies of his/her medical license or other certification. 

(b) If a physician does not possess ABIME certification, the physician must 

submit a statement certifying and explaining his/her familiarity and years 

of experience in using the AMA’s Guides.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

(2) Rating Physician Qualification. A physician who performs an impairment 

evaluation must satisfy certain criteria. In order for a CE to accept an 

impairment rating, the rating physician must hold a valid medical license and 

board certification in his/her field of expertise (e.g., Pulmonary, Neurology, 

Occupational Medicine, etc.). In addition, the physician must meet at least one of 

the following criteria: certified by the American Board of Independent Medical 

Examiners (ABIME) or the International Academy of Independent Medical 

Evaluators (IAIME); possess knowledge and experience in using the AMA’s 

Guides; or possess the requisite professional background and work experience to 

conduct such ratings. 

(a) A CE may determine the qualifications of the physician upon receipt of a 

letter or a resume demonstrating that the physician has a medical license 

and meets the requisite program requirements. There is no need to submit 

copies of his/her medical license or other certification. 

(b) If a physician does not possess ABIME or IAIME certification, the 

physician must submit a statement certifying and explaining his/her 

familiarity and years of experience in using the AMA’s Guides.

o Ch. 21.8d has been updated to clarify guidance on impairment ratings for secondary 

specified cancers approved under the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC.) The language in 

v5.0 previously read:

d. Metastatic Bone Cancer. 
8

(1) In situations where the CE accepts a case under the SEC provision 

based on metastatic (secondary) cancer, i.e. metastatic bone or 

metastatic renal cancer, often the primary source of the metastatic 

cancer will prove to be the prostate. If the CE does not accept the 

prostate cancer due to a lack of a causative link and because 

prostate cancer is not an SEC-specified cancer, it is important that 

the CE ensure that a physician does not apply the non-covered 

prostate cancer in an impairment rating. A physician or CMC may 

only consider the accepted condition of SEC metastatic cancer for 

the impairment rating.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

d. Secondary “specified” cancers approved under SEC class

(1) When a CE accepts that a secondary cancer is a “specified” 

cancer under the SEC provision (e.g. metastatic bone or renal 

cancer) the CE may not accept the primary cancer as a 

compensable illness unless it is approved through a Probability of 

Causation finding of 50% or greater, or the cancer is the result of 

toxic substance exposure (biological or chemical). When weighing 

an impairment rating involving an accepted secondary “specified” 

cancer under the SEC provision, without a finding that the primary 

cancer is also a compensable Part E illness, the CE must ensure 

that the qualified physician only rates the effect of the secondary 

cancer using the 5th edition of the AMA’s Guides to the Evaluation 

of Permanent Impairment. Under this circumstance, the CE 

should initiate development if a rating physician refers to the 

assignment of a percentage of whole-person impairment for an 

unaccepted primary cancer from a Table or other guidance from 

the Guides that is specific to the unaccepted primary cancer. 

o Ch. 21.8e has been added to clarify that a six-minute walk test is an acceptable 

mechanism in rating impairment for respiratory disorders. The new language reads:

e. Respiratory Disorders. A 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) is an acceptable 

mechanism to measure the VO2max for the purposes of rating a disorder of the 

respiratory system (Chapter 5 of AMA’s Guides). 

o Ch. 21.9 has been updated to provide guidance on the evaluation of impairment reports. 

The language in v5.0 previously read:

9. Receipt of the Impairment Evaluation. Upon completion of the impairment 

evaluation by a physician, the CE reviews the report to assure that it contains all the

information necessary to meet DEEOIC’s criteria for a valid impairment. The CE

reviews the impairment evaluation to determine the following: whether the opining
9

physician possesses the requisite skills and requirements to provide a rating as set out 

in paragraph 4d(2); whether the evaluation was conducted within one year of receipt by

the DEEOIC; whether the report addresses the covered illness or illnesses; whether the

whole person percentage of impairment is explained with a clearly rationalized medical 

opinion as to its relationship to the covered illness or illnesses, and whether the medical 

opinion is supported by medical evidence in the case file.

a. Incomplete Ratings. If the impairment rating report is unclear or lacks 

rationalized medical analysis in support of the offered conclusion, additional 

clarification is required. In such instances, the CE returns the impairment 

rating evaluation to the rating physician with a request for clarification, 

explaining what areas are in need of remedy. If the employee’s choice

physician submitted the insufficient report and no response is received, or it is 

returned without sufficient clarification, the CE notifies the physician and the

employee of the need for additional justification. If a response is not 

forthcoming, the CE may issue a RD to deny the impairment claim for an 

insufficient impairment report. If the CMC submits an incomplete report, the 

CE notifies the CMC of the deficiency and requests a more comprehensive 

report.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

9. Evaluation of Impairment Rating. The role of the CE is to evaluate a submitted 

impairment report to decide whether the physician’s opinion of whole-person 

impairment is consistent with the weight of medical evidence and can support a 

recommendation to award lump-sum compensation. This weighing of the medical 

evidence must occur for ratings from both the employee’s choice physician or that of a 

CMC. Assigning the weight of medical evidence to an impairment rating requires the 

CE to obtain the necessary documentation to ensure that the general requirements for 

an impairment rating, as discussed in this chapter, are satisfied. The CE may then

proceed to evaluate the weight of other factors that would allow the CE to conclude that 

the physician has offered a well-rationalized opinion. When conducting a comparative 

analysis of the physician’s impairment rating to other objective evidence available in 

the case file, the CE may assign weight to an opinion that aligns with available evidence 

on the employee’s functional capacities or other information present in the case file. 

Furthermore, the CE assigns greater weight to a whole-person impairment that the CE 

can interpret as reasonably conforming to explicit guidance communicated in the 

AMA’s Guides. In the absence of explicit guidance or instruction regarding the 

application of the AMA’s Guides to justify a particular rating, the CE is to defer to the 

judgment of the rating physician. 

a. A qualified rating physician may use professional discretion when 

deciding how to apply the AMA’s Guides in the absence of explicit 

guidance regarding how to apply clinical or diagnostic data in calculating 

a whole-person impairment; however, a physician may not deviate from 

instructions or methods that the AMA’s Guides state are explicitly 
10

necessary for assigning a particular impairment rating. The CE may 

compare diagnostic test measures referenced by a rating physician to 

ensure that the test measures accurately align to a specific impairment 

range or percentile of impairment, as reported in an applicable table or 

instruction from the AMA’s Guides. Documented inconsistencies or 

potential errors in the application of the AMA’s Guides lessen the weight 

of an impairment opinion and require the CE to initiate development. 

b. The AMA’s Guides specify the parameters for assessing ADL functionality 

so a physician can gauge the assignment of a percentage of impairment 

(Table 1-2 pg.4). A rating physician referring to ADL functionality must 

relate any discussion of the severity of ADL dysfunction to the activities 

cited specifically in the AMA’s Guides. Moreover, the severity of any 

reported ADL dysfunction must align with other objective information in 

the case file that describes the employee’s functional capacity. Where the 

CE identifies an obvious contradiction between the ADL deficits 

communicated in an impairment report versus other available objective

evidence, further development is appropriate. A rating physician’s 

discussion of functional limitations or an employee’s capacity to complete 

ADLs must also align reasonably to the assigned scale or grade that the 

AMA’s Guides explicitly requires for the impairment. However, when the 

AMA’s Guides do not communicate a clear requirement or communicate 

that the physician has discretion to assign a percentage of impairment 

within a particular range, the CE is to defer to the judgment of the 

physician.

For situations where a documented contradiction exists between the 

manner in which the physician communicates their understanding of ADL 

functionality and other available objective evidence contained in the case 

file, the CE has to assign less weight to the physician’s opinion. The CE is 

to initiate development that seeks clarification from the physician. For 

example, the AMA’s Guides explains that for some ratings, an individual 

must be fully dependent on others for self-care. If a physician refers to 

this standard in justifying a particular percentage of impairment, and 

upon review of the case file there is documented evidence that the 

claimant has independent ADL functionality, this is a reason for the CE to 

assign less weight to the physician’s opinion and to undertake 

development. 

c. Upon identification of a deficiency in the application of the AMA’s Guides 

by a CMC or an employee’s physician, the CE is to initiate development. 

The purpose of development is to communicate to the rating physician any 

question(s) regarding the application of the AMA’s Guides or to provide 

the physician with an opportunity to consider new evidence. Upon receipt 

of any response, the CE must weigh whether any clarification overcomes 

the concerns with the initial impairment rating. For any CMC opinion 
11

deemed insufficient after further development, the CE refers the matter to 

the Policy Branch for a review by the CMC Contract Manager. 

If the employee’s chosen physician does not respond to further 

development requests or submits a response to which the CE cannot 

assign the weight of medical evidence because of an explicit defect in the 

application of the AMA’s Guides, the CE is to make a referral for a CMC 

file review. Upon receipt of the second opinion, the CE is to conduct a 

comparative analysis of the competing whole-person impairment ratings 

by the employee’s chosen physician and the CMC. The opinion to which 

the CE assigns the greatest weight will be used to calculate the wholeperson impairment benefits awarded. In the event the CE assigns equal 

weight to the opinions of the employee’s physician and CMC, the CE 

refers the issue to a Referee Specialist for review per established 

procedure.

• Chapter 24 – Recommended Decisions

o Ch. 24.7a(4)(a) has been edited to clarify that when a recommended decision is awarding 

medical benefits, the Conclusions of Law are to include the effective eligibility date. The 

language in v5.0 previously read:

(a) When the conclusion is to accept a claim, the CE must include the amount of 

payable lump-sum compensation or award of medical benefits effective the date of 

filing, and under what Part of the Act the benefit is being awarded. 

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

(a) When the conclusion is to accept a claim, the CE must include the amount of 

payable lump-sum compensation or award of medical benefits with the effective 

eligibility date, and under what Part of the Act the benefit is being awarded.

• Chapter 25 – FAB Review Process

o Ch. 25.3 has been edited to accurately communicate the current operational structure of 

the FAB, and provide updates to the existing FAB roles responsible for case adjudication 

functions. The language in v5.0 previously read:

3. Organization. The FAB is a NO organization with DO locations (FAB-DOs) in: 

Jacksonville, Florida; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; and Seattle, Washington. 

The FAB-DO is a distinct entity with a separate operational and management structure. 

In addition to the FAB-DOs, a NO FAB (FAB-NO) is located in Washington, D.C. The 

FAB Chief is located in the Washington, D.C., office and oversees the operations of the 

FAB-NO and the four FAB-DOs.

a. The FAB Chief and Assistant Branch Chiefs:
12

(1) Coordinate the administration of the four FAB-DOs and the FABNO. Oversee policy implementation, manage adjudication 

timeliness, and ensure general compliance with FAB procedures.

Hearing requests received by FAB-DOs are sent to the FAB-NO 

for assignment. A hearing coordinator, as designated by the FAB 

Chief, manages the assignment of hearings nationwide.

Reconsideration requests are forwarded to FAB-NO, Attn: FAB 

Ops, and are assigned to an office different from that which issued 

the FD.

(2) Can redistribute certain case files at their discretion to ensure 

balanced caseloads among the four FAB-DOs and the FAB-NO.

b. FAB Offices:

(1) Review RDs, conduct hearings, reviews of the written record, and 

issue FDs or Remand Orders on reviewed cases. The cases 

reviewed by FAB, and the cases for which FAB conducts hearings, 

can originate from any DO. A FAB HR can be assigned a hearing 

anywhere in the nation; not just in his or her FAB office’s 

jurisdiction.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

3. Organization. The FAB is a NO organization with five units located in: 

Jacksonville, Florida; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; and 

Washington, D.C. The FAB Chief oversees the operations of the FAB.

a. The FAB Chief and Assistant Branch Chiefs:

(1) Coordinate the administration of the FAB. Oversee policy 

implementation, manage adjudication timeliness, and ensure 

general compliance with FAB procedures.

(2) Redistribute case files at their discretion to ensure balanced 

caseloads among the five FAB units.

b. FAB Unit Offices:

(1) Review RDs, conduct hearings, reviews of the written record, and 

issue FDs or Remand Orders on reviewed cases.

o Ch. 25.4 has been edited to accurately communicate that FAB automates incoming case 

assignments on a rotational basis. The language in v5.0 previously read:
13

4. Processing, Monitoring, and Transferring Case Files. When a DO issues a RD, it 

will forward the entire case file to its affiliated FAB-DO or the FAB-NO, as directed, for 

review and issuance of a FD. Because each FAB office, including the FAB-NO, is 

separate and distinct from the DOs, each maintains a separate mail and file operation.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

4. Processing, Monitoring, and Transferring Case Files. FAB automates the 

assignment of incoming cases with claim assignments distributed from the four regional 

district office units on a rotational basis to HR staff located in any of the FAB unit offices 

to ensure equitable work distribution.

• Chapter 28 – Medical Bill Process

o Ch. 28 is being reissued in its entirety. The chapter has been reorganized and 

consolidated to more effectively communicate procedures relating to the processing of 

medical bills arising from the treatment of accepted work related illness(es). A summary 

of chapter edits are as follows:

 Updates references to Medical Bill Processing Unit (MBPU) responsibilities,

including the management and oversight of medical bill processing systems, 

transaction coding and the Bill Processing Agent (BPA) contractor. 

 Eliminates references to medical adjudication functions that Claims Examiner (CE) or 

other staff no longer perform.

 Describes the function and operation of automated bill processing systems using 

treatment suites and a fee schedule for bill payment.

 Clarifies the procedure for conducting a review of contested fee schedule reductions 

submitted by medical providers

 Provides updated guidance on processing timely submitted medical bills.

 Adds updated procedures for handling provider debarment and suspension

 Provides new staff guidance on a uniform process for submitting medical bill 

processing issues or questions to the MBPU for response.

• Chapter 29 – Ancillary Medical Benefits

o Ch. 29 is being reissued in its entirety. It has been renamed and its material consolidated 

and reorganized to more efficiently address reimbursement claims for a wide variety of 

ancillary medical benefits, services and expenses, as follows:

 Consolidates and clarifies information needed by Medical Benefits Examiners 

(MBEs) and the DEEOIC BPA for expeditious review and processing of 

reimbursement claims for all ancillary medical benefits.

 Consolidates information related to a variety of durable medical equipment (DME) 

claims, with the exception oxygen DME, into one section addressing all DME 

reimbursement requests.
14

 Condenses and simplifies language related to reimbursement claims for Oxygen DME 

and oxygen therapy services.

 Consolidates language related to reimbursement claims for a variety of rehabilitative 

therapy services (with the exception of oxygen therapy); including, physical, 

occupational, speech, and massage therapy, as well as acupuncture treatment.

 Removes guidance regarding developmental steps from each individual section of the 

previous version (v5.0) and consolidates this guidance into one simplified 

development process for all reimbursement claims. 

 Adds new guidance regarding DEEOIC process for internal review of claims for 

organ transplants and experimental treatments.

 Adds new guidance pertaining to the adjudication of non-fee schedule services and 

supplies, including prescription drugs not covered within the OWCP treatment suites.

 Adds guidance previously found in Ch. 28 – Medical Bill Process, regarding claims 

for reimbursement of medical record procurement expenses.

• Chapter 33 – Compensation Payments

o Ch. 33.3 has been edited to update the address to which claimants return a Form EN-20; 

to provide additional guidance regarding how an EN-20 is to be processed for minors;

and to provide additional guidance regarding the handling of EN-20s that have been 

determined to be deficient. Based on these changes, the subsections of Ch. 33.3 have

been renumbered accordingly. The language in v5.0 previously read:

3. Processing the EN-20. Upon issuance of a FD awarding compensation, the FAB 

enters the AOP amount in ECS. ECS generates the EN-20 (Acceptance of Payment 

Form) and the EE-20 (award letter), which FAB mails to the claimant, along with the 

FD. ECS will automatically assign an AOP sent date to correspond with the issuance 

date of the FD. As part of the electronic document retention process, the appropriate 

staff person will electronically image (a/k/a bronze) the cover letter, FD, and a copy of 

the EN/EE-20 for viewing in OIS. If the claimant requests another EN-20, it is 

permissible to send a photocopy or facsimile to the claimant, for signature, however, it 

must be returned by mail, bearing an original payee signature, with no changes or 

alterations to the information contained on the original EN-20. 

If a claimant or AR inadvertently returns an EN-20 to a RC, or to the CMR in London, 

KY, staff in these facilities will upload the document through the EDP, then mail the 

original document to the appropriate DO via regular mail. 

a. DO Mailroom Handling. The FD cover letter instructs the claimant to 

return the completed EN-20 to the DO that issued the RD. Upon receipt 

of the completed EN-20, mailroom staff date stamps the form (AOP 

Received Date), in the upper right corner, using an ink date stamp. 

b. ECS Routing. Once the completed EN-20 is bronzed into the OIS case 

record, the document automatically appears in the OIS Unreviewed 

Document Tab of the ECS-assigned DO or FAB CE, for initial review. 
15

(1) Accuracy of Payment Data. The CE reviews the signed EN-20, in 

OIS, (or the original document if so desired,) to determine if the 

form contains correct payment data, and that the form has been 

correctly completed by the payee, examining each of the following 

items:

(a) Case ID

(b) Payee name. The Payee Name, as it appears at the top of 

the Form EN-20, must be listed as one of the account 

holder names provided in the Account Information section. 

In the event the payee name is not listed as an account 

holder, the CE contacts the payee for an explanation. If it 

is determined that the payee wants his/her payment to be 

deposited in a third-party account, a Payment 

Memorandum is prepared, and bronzed into OIS, 

explaining the name variance. The only exception to this 

requirement is when the EN-20 is signed by an approved 

POA and the payment is being deposited in the POA’s bank 

account.

(c) Payee SSN.

(d) Verification of Account Information: “type account” block 

is checked (“C” for checking, “S” for savings) and the 

routing and account numbers are listed correctly, with no 

trace-overs, or corrections.

(e) EN-20 is signed and dated. (If the form is signed by an 

individual with POA, refer to the POA process below).

If the CE, SrCE, FO, or DD wishes to examine the original EN-20, 

because the OIS document is not clear, that individual obtains the original 

document from the DO folder, then returns the original document to the 

DO folder, when finished.

c. Deficient EN-20. Minor deficiencies in claimant-provided information, 

other than items (a) through (e), above, can often be explained by a 

memorandum to the case file without having to return an EN-20 to the 

claimant. However, if the CE determines that a significant deficiency 

exists in one of the above-described items, the CE/FO prepares a letter to 

the claimant explaining the EN-20 deficiency and the corrective action 

required for the payment to proceed. In either case, the CE bronzes the 

memorandum, or the claimant letter, to OIS. The CE also annotates the 

OIS description field identifying the EN-20 as defective. When returning a 

defective EN-20 to a payee, a new copy of the EN-20 is to be provided for 
16

the claimant’s use. If a modification of the original EN-20 is required, 

due to incorrect information provided by the FAB, the DO POC contacts 

the FAB and requests that a corrected EN-20 be mailed to the payee. In 

this instance, the FAB office is responsible for sending a new EN-20 to the 

claimant and imaging a copy of the corrected EN-20 into OIS. 

(1) Signature by POA. If the EN-20 contains a signature by a POA, 

either the FO, or the CE (at the DD’s discretion) conducts a 

document review to ascertain whether the individual who signed 

the EN-20 has the legal authority to sign on behalf of the payee. 

To accomplish this, the CE identifies and reviews the legal 

document authorizing an individual as POA. If such a document 

does not exist in the case file, the FO/CE undertakes development 

to obtain this information. Upon receipt of a document identifying 

the designated POA, the FO/CE prepares a cover memorandum 

and sends the memorandum, the EN-20, and the POA documents,

(via facsimile), to the NO Policy Branch, for referral to the SOL. 

The DO memorandum requests a review of the POA documents to 

determine their legal sufficiency as they pertain to the signing of 

an EN-20. The person preparing the memorandum ensures that it 

is bronzed into OIS. At the time of referral to the Policy Branch, 

the FO/CE enters a 7-day “reminder” in ECS.

(2) The Policy Branch fiscal staff acts as the NO POC for any followup inquiries from the DO. Staff within the Policy Branch are 

responsible for routing POA requests to the SOL for review and 

response. Upon review, the SOL responds directly to the 

requesting DO, via facsimile. 

(a) If the SOL determines that the POA documentation is 

deficient for any reason, the CE sends a letter to the 

claimant (with a copy to the POA), advising that the SOL 

has determined the POA documents to be unacceptable, 

and stating the reason why. The CE does not send a copy 

of the Solicitor’s opinion to the claimant. Upon 

notification to the claimant, of a deficient POA, the CE 

deletes the “AOP received date” from ECS.

(b) All documents pertaining to the acceptance or rejection of 

a POA are imaged and stored in OIS, separate from the 

payment documents, and are specifically identified as POA 

documents.

d. Check Requests. In accordance with Department of Treasury Regulations, 

individuals requesting payment by check can only be approved for such 

under limited circumstances, and upon written request from the payee.
17

An exception was granted by Treasury for check requests by law firms that 

receive multiple payments (refer to 3d (6) below), and for payments made 

to foreign addresses (refer to 4e, below).

(1) In the event that a claimant contacts the DO, by letter or telephone 

call, requesting payment by check, the request is routed to the 

responsible CE. The CE is to inform the payee that compensation 

payments are delivered via EFT, unless the claimant meets one of 

two exceptions:

(a) Payment by electronic funds would impose a hardship 

because of the individual’s inability to manage an account 

at a financial institution due to a mental impairment; or,

(b) Payment by electronic funds imposes a hardship because 

the individual lives in a remote geographic location lacking 

the infrastructure to support electronic financial 

transactions.

(2) If the claimant states that one of these two exceptions is applicable, 

the CE instructs the claimant to return the signed and completed 

EN-20 (leaving the EFT section blank), to the DO accompanied by 

a signed letter which:

(a) Requests payment by check;

(b) States which of the above two exceptions applies; 

(c) States the mailing address for the check.

(3) Upon receipt of a satisfactory letter, which meets the above 

criteria, and which accompanies a properly executed EN-20 

(minus the EFT information) the letter and EN-20 are bronzed into 

OIS, and the EN-20 is sent to the FO for review. If approved, the 

FO notifies the CE, via OIS, that the request for payment by check 

is approved. 

(4) Unsolicited letters from claimants, requesting payment by check, 

that do not meet the above exceptions [(items d (1)(a) and (b)], 

require a telephone call to the claimant explaining the limited 

exceptions to the EFT rule. If the claimant states that he/she meets 

one of the exception criteria, the claimant submits a new signed 

letter, specifically requesting payment by check, citing the 

applicable exception.
18

(5) If, after the CE has explained the limited exceptions to a claimant 

and upon receipt of a letter deemed deficient or lacking in 

explanation, the CE refers the letter to the Policy Branch and 

requests that the NO contact the payee. 

(6) It is the responsibility of the DD in each DO to prepare procedural 

guidance for the law firms within their jurisdiction that regularly 

submit check requests to DEEOIC. This includes advising the 

firms as to what specific information should be contained in cover 

letters to be used when requesting payment by check. (See 3d 

above)

e. EFT. If the FO finds that the EN-20 and associated payment documents 

are acceptable for payment processing, the FO sends a notification to the 

Pay Change Assistant (PCA) for continuation of the payment process. If 

the case is designated “Terminal” in ECS, the FO directs the CE to 

prepare an Expedited Processing Payment 

Transaction Form (EPPTF) for use by the NO. If the DO is unable to 

process the payment through ECS, an EPPTF is prepared for use by the 

NO. The payment forms available for use in creating expedited and 

exception payments, (samples of which are found in the Appendix), are as 

follows: 

(1) Expedited Payments – Expedited Processing PTF (Exhibit 33-1)

(2) Expedited Payments to third-party account names or alias names –

Expedited Processing PTF, Third Party Accounts (Exhibit 33-2)

(3) Exception Payments (Non-ECS Payments) – Exception Processing 

PTF (Exhibit 33-3)

Further instructions pertaining to exception processing of payments, by 

the NO, appear in section 8, below.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

3. Processing the EN-20. Upon issuance of a FD awarding compensation, the FAB 

enters the AOP amount in ECS. ECS generates the EN-20 (Acceptance of Payment 

Form) and the EE-20 (award letter), which FAB mails to the claimant, along with the 

FD. ECS will automatically assign an AOP sent date to correspond with the issuance 

date of the FD. As part of the electronic document retention process, the appropriate 

staff person will electronically image (a/k/a bronze) the cover letter, FD, and a copy of 

the EN/EE-20 for viewing in OIS. If the claimant requests another EN-20, it is 

permissible to send a photocopy or facsimile to the claimant, for signature, however, it 

must be returned by mail, bearing an original payee signature, with no changes or 

alterations to the information contained on the original EN-20. 
19

The FD Cover Letter instructs claimants to return the completed Form EN-20 to the 

CMR. If a claimant, or AR, inadvertently returns an EN-20 to a RC, staff at the RC 

forward the form, via mail, to the CMR. Should a completed EN-20 arrive at the DO, the 

DO mailroom uploads the form into OIS. FOs are to oversee that the DO mailroom 

maintain the hardcopy Form EN-20 for the period required under agency record 

retention guidance, and that it is properly destroyed thereafter. DEEOIC retains the

imaged version of a Form EN-20 f permanently in OIS. 

 

The FD Cover Letter instructs claimants to return their completed Form EN-20 to the 

CMR address. If a claimant, or AR, inadvertently returns an EN-20 to a DEEOIC RC, 

staff at the RC are to mail the form to the CMR. In those instances where a claimant 

mails a completed EN-20 to a DO address, the DO mailroom uploads an electronic 

image of the form into OIS and indexes it by Category (i.e., Form & Claims) and Subject 

(i.e., EE/EN-20). The DO mailroom then forwards the form to DO fiscal operations. DO 

FOs are to maintain the hardcopy form for the period required under agency record 

retention guidance and then destroy the form, as an imaged version will be permanently 

maintained in OIS.

a. OIS Routing. Once a completed EN-20 is uploaded to OIS, at the CMR 

or by a DEEOIC staff person, the form will appear in OIS as an 

“Unreviewed” document requiring review by the assigned DO CE or 

FAB HR. The DO CE, or FAB HR, is responsible for initial review to 

ensure that OIS indexing is correct so that payment processing may 

begin.

b. Initial Review of the EN-20. Once the completed EN-20 saved into the 

OIS case record, the document automatically appears in the OIS 

Unreviewed Document Tab of the ECS-assigned staff person for initial 

review. 

(1) Accuracy of Payment Data. The CE or designated staff person

reviews the signed EN-20, in OIS, (or the original document if so 

desired,) to determine if the form contains correct payment data, 

and that the form has been correctly completed by the payee, 

examining each of the following items:

(a) Case ID

(b) Payee name. The payee name must be listed as one of the 

account holder names provided in the Account Information 

section. In the event the payee name is not listed as an 

account holder, or the CE has additional questions, he/she 

contacts the payee for clarification. If it is determined that 

the payee wants his/her payment to be deposited in a thirdparty account, a Payment Memorandum is prepared, and 

uploaded into OIS, explaining the name variance. (The 

only exception to this requirement is when the EN-20 is 
20

signed by an approved POA and the payment is being 

deposited in the POA’s bank account.)

(c) Payee SSN.

(d) Verification of Account Information: “type account” block 

is checked (“C” for checking, “S” for savings) and the 

routing and account numbers are listed correctly, with no 

trace-overs, or corrections.

(e) EN-20 is signed and dated by the payee. (If the form is 

signed by an individual with POA, refer to the POA 

approval process below).

If a minor child is the payee, a parent or legal guardian 

must sign the EN-20. For a parent to sign on behalf of a 

minor child, the case must document that the person 

signing the form is a biological or adoptive parent. If the 

minor child has a legal guardian, the guardian will need to 

document their legal authority to serve on behalf of the 

child before DEEOIC may authorize payment. Any 

individual signing on behalf of a minor child under a court 

appointment of guardianship must present the legal 

instrument permitting their authority to sign the EN-20. 

This document must then undergo review in accordance 

with the POA review procedure discussed in this chapter to 

ensure its legal sufficiency. 

c. Deficient EN-20. In reviewing the EN-20, the staff person, assigned by the 

DO to process the payment is responsible for evaluating the accuracy and 

sufficiency of the completed form. Issues with the form that the reviewing 

staff person interprets as minor technical errors, including grammatical 

or spelling mistakes, are not to impede the processing of the form. The 

staff person evaluating the EN-20 can document the identification of such 

errors in a brief memo-to-file denoting their existence. However, if the 

person reviewing the form identifies a significant deficiency with the 

content of the EN-20, payment processing is to stop and development must 

occur with the payee. Major deficiencies can involve any number of 

issues that may result in the DEEOIC staff person questioning the 

sufficiency of an EN-20. Major deficiencies include, but are not limited 

to, incorrect payment amounts, illegible handwriting, unknown or unclear 

signatories, mismatching signatures, cross-outs or obvious alteration of 

form information, or problems with EFT routing/account numbers. Upon 

a determination that the EN-20 contains a major deficiency, the staff 

person processing the form must prepare a letter to the payee, rejecting 

the deficient form, identifying the deficiency, and requesting that the payee 
21

submit a new, corrected Form EN-20. The staff person mailing the letter 

will upload an electronic copy to OIS and this will serve to document the 

needed corrective action. Upon rejecting the Form EN-20, the staff 

person is to update the OIS description field that corresponds with the 

deficient form clearly identifying that document as defective and unusable 

for payment processing.

d. Signature by POA. If the EN-20 contains a signature by a POA, the FO 

conducts a document review to ascertain whether the individual who 

signed the EN-20 has the legal authority to sign on behalf of the payee. 

To accomplish this, the CE identifies and reviews the legal document 

authorizing an individual as POA. If such a document does not exist in 

the case file, the FO/CE undertakes development to obtain this 

information. Upon receipt of a document identifying the designated POA, 

the FO/CE prepares a cover memorandum and sends the memorandum, 

the EN-20, and the POA documents (via facsimile) to the NO Policy 

Branch, for referral to the SOL. The DO memorandum requests a review 

of the POA documents to determine their legal sufficiency as they pertain 

to the signing of an EN-20. The person preparing the memorandum 

ensures that it is uploaded into OIS. At the time of referral to the Policy 

Branch, the FO/CE enters a 7-day “reminder” in ECS.

(1) The Policy Branch fiscal staff acts as the NO POC for any followup inquiries from the DO. Staff within the Policy Branch are 

responsible for routing POA requests to the SOL for review and 

response. Upon review, the SOL responds directly to the 

requesting DO, via facsimile. 

(a) If the SOL determines that the POA documentation is 

deficient for any reason, the CE sends a letter to the 

claimant (with a copy to the POA), advising that the SOL 

has determined the POA documents to be unacceptable, 

and stating the reason why. The CE does not send a copy 

of the Solicitor’s opinion to the claimant. Upon 

notification to the claimant, of a deficient POA, the CE 

deletes the “AOP received date” from ECS.

(b) All documents pertaining to the acceptance or rejection of 

a POA are imaged and stored in OIS, separate from the 

payment documents, and are specifically identified as POA 

documents.

e. Check Requests. In accordance with Department of Treasury Regulations, 

individuals requesting payment by check can only be approved for such 

under limited circumstances, and upon written request from the payee.
22

An exception was granted by Treasury for check requests by law firms that 

receive multiple payments (refer to 3d (6) below), and for payments made 

to foreign addresses (refer to 4e, below).

(1) In the event that a claimant contacts the DO, by letter or telephone 

call, requesting payment by check, the request is routed to the 

responsible CE. The CE is to inform the payee that compensation 

payments are delivered via EFT, unless the claimant meets one of 

two exceptions:

(a) Payment by electronic funds would impose a hardship 

because of the individual’s inability to manage an account 

at a financial institution due to a mental impairment; or,

(b) Payment by electronic funds imposes a hardship because 

the individual lives in a remote geographic location lacking 

the infrastructure to support electronic financial 

transactions.

(2) If the claimant states that one of these two exceptions is applicable, 

the CE instructs the claimant to return the signed and completed 

EN-20 (leaving the EFT section blank), to the DO accompanied by 

a signed letter which:

(a) Requests payment by check;

(b) States which of the above two exceptions applies; 

(c) States the mailing address for the check.

(3) Upon receipt of a satisfactory letter, which meets the above 

criteria, and which accompanies a properly executed EN-20 

(minus the EFT information) the letter and EN-20 are uploaded

into OIS, and the EN-20 is sent to the FO for review. If approved, 

the FO notifies the CE, via OIS, that the request for payment by 

check is approved. 

(4) Unsolicited letters from claimants, requesting payment by check, 

that do not meet the above exceptions [(items d (1)(a) and (b)], 

require a telephone call to the claimant explaining the limited 

exceptions to the EFT rule. If the claimant states that he/she meets 

one of the exception criteria, the claimant submits a new signed 

letter, specifically requesting payment by check, citing the 

applicable exception.
23

(5) If, after the CE has explained the limited exceptions to a claimant 

and upon receipt of a letter deemed deficient or lacking in 

explanation, the CE refers the letter to the Policy Branch and 

requests that the NO contact the payee. 

(6) It is the responsibility of the DD in each DO to prepare procedural 

guidance for the law firms within their jurisdiction that regularly 

submit check requests to DEEOIC. This includes advising the 

firms as to what specific information should be contained in cover 

letters to be used when requesting payment by check. (See 3d 

above)

f. EFT. If the FO finds that the EN-20 and associated payment documents

are acceptable for payment processing, the FO sends a notification to the 

designated staff person for continuation of the payment process. If the 

case is designated “Terminal” in ECS, the FO directs the CE to prepare 

an Expedited Processing Payment 

Transaction Form (EPPTF) for use by the NO. If the DO is unable to 

process the payment through ECS, an EPPTF is prepared for use by the 

NO. The payment forms available for use in creating expedited and 

exception payments, (samples of which are found in the Appendix), are as 

follows: 

(1) Expedited Payments – Expedited Processing PTF (Exhibit 33-1)

(2) Expedited Payments to third-party account names or alias names –

Expedited Processing PTF, Third Party Accounts (Exhibit 33-2)

(3) Exception Payments (Non-ECS Payments) – Exception Processing 

PTF (Exhibit 33-3)

Further instructions pertaining to exception processing of payments, by 

the NO, appear in section 8, below.

o Ch. 33.4 has been updated to align with new payment procedures. The language in v5.0

previously read:

4. Creating the EFT Payment. 

a. PCA Data Entry: The PCA enters the following items in the ECS payment 

screen: 

(1) AOP received date (i.e., date the EN-20 was date-stamped as 

received at the DO). 
24

(2) Banking Information pertaining to the recipient’s financial 

institution (bank or credit union). 

(a) Bank or Credit Union Name. 

(b) ACH (Federal Reserve Bank) Routing Number. 

(c) Recipient’s account number. 

(d) Type of account: Checking or Savings. (Payments may 

also be made to money market accounts, as long as no 

third-party routing system is involved and the account type 

can be classified as checking or savings.)

(3) Names listed on EN-20 for all account-holders. [Note: For wire 

transfer (Fed Wire) payments, the Payee Name on the EN-20 must 

match one of the Account Holder names.] 

b. PCA Verification. Upon PCA submission of the data in ECS, the CE 

automatically receives a “Payment Pending” item in their ECS work 

queue. 

c. Verification of Federal Reserve Bank Routing Number. The FO (or 

designated alternate) verifies the authenticity of the bank routing number, 

listed on the EN-20, through the Federal Reserve Financial Services 

website: Search for ACH Participants. Once verification of the routing 

number is complete, the FO memorializes the verification in an ECS Note. 

The Federal Reserve website is found at: 

https://www.frbservices.org/EPaymentsDirectory/agreement.html.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

4. Creating the EFT Payment. 

a. CA Data Entry: The CA enters the following items in the ECS payment 

screen: 

(1) AOP received date (the “Submission date” as recorded in OIS.) 

(2) ACH (Federal Reserve Bank) Routing Number. 

(3) Recipient’s account number. 

(4) Type of account: Checking or Savings. (Payments may also be 

made to money market accounts, as long as no third-party routing 
25

system is involved and the account type can be classified as 

checking or savings.)

(5) Names listed on EN-20 for all account-holders. [Note: For wire 

transfer (Fed Wire) payments, the Payee Name on the EN-20 must 

match one of the Account Holder names.] 

b. CA Verification. Upon CA submission of the data in ECS, the CE 

automatically receives a “Payment Pending” item in their ECS work 

queue. 

c. Verification of Federal Reserve Bank Routing Number. The FO (or 

designated alternate) verifies the authenticity of the bank routing number, 

listed on the EN-20, through the Federal Reserve Financial Services 

website: Search for ACH Participants. Once verification of the routing 

number is complete, the FO captures a screen shot or download of the 

website search result and uploads the image to the OIS claim record. The 

Federal Reserve website is found at: 

https://www.frbservices.org/EPaymentsDirectory/agreement.html.

o Ch. 33.6 has been updated to reflect new fiscal procedures regarding the roles authorized 

to certify payments. The language in v5.0 previously read:

6. Completing the ECS Payment. Once the PCA has verified the accuracy and 

completeness of the information provided on the EN-20, and entered the payment data in 

ECS, the CE receives a “Pending Payment” item in their work queue. The CE verifies 

the banking information (account number, routing number, and account type) by reentering it in ECS. The CE creates the payment in ECS and routes the payment to a 

Senior CE for Certification. After certification, the payment is routed to an FO for 

Verification, then to a DD (or an individual with DD privileges), for Authorization. As 

each individual (CE, SrCE, and FO) completes their function in ECS, the next designated 

user automatically receives a pending payment item in their ECS work queue. Each 

individual, who completes their respective payment step in ECS, is responsible for 

examining the payment documents and affirming that the payment amount and associated 

data, recorded on the EN-20, appears correctly on the ECS payment screen. Once the 

DD completes the authorization step, the payment is automatically added to the weekly 

batch payments for that DO and the payment is authorized for issuance by the 

Department of Treasury.

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

6. Completing the ECS Payment. Once the CA has verified the accuracy and 

completeness of the information provided on the EN-20, and entered the payment data in 

ECS, the CE receives a “Pending Payment” item in their work queue. The CE verifies 

the banking information (account number, routing number, and account type) by reentering it in ECS. The CE creates the payment in ECS and routes the payment to a 
26

certifying CE, manager or CES. After certification, the payment is routed to an FO for 

verification, then to a DD (or an individual with DD privileges), for authorization. As 

each individual (CE, SCE or CES, and FO) completes their function in ECS, the next 

designated user automatically receives a pending payment item in their ECS work queue. 

Each individual, who completes their respective payment step in ECS, is responsible for 

examining the payment documents and affirming that the payment amount and associated 

data, recorded on the EN-20, appears correctly on the ECS payment screen. Once the 

DD completes the authorization step, the payment is automatically added to the weekly 

batch payments for that DO and the payment is authorized for issuance by the 

Department of Treasury. 

o Ch. 33.7 has been updated to eliminate the need for an “authorization date” in OIS. The 

language in v5.0 previously read:

7. Entering and Identifying Payments in OIS. Payments completed at both the DO 

and the NO are to be bronzed in OIS and identified as follows:

a. DO Payments. At the time a payment is Authorized by the DD (or an 

approved person with the DD role), the EN-20, and any associated 

correspondence or memoranda associated with the final EN-20, are to be 

bronzed and saved as a “final payment” documents in OIS. When adding 

these documents to OIS, they are to be labeled with a unique identifier 

consisting of the letters “PMT” followed by the first 4 letters of the 

payee’s last name, the last 4 numbers of the payee SSN, and the 

Authorization Date as it appears in ECS. For example, the EN-20 for a 

payment to someone named Jones, with a “last 4” of 9876, and an 

Authorization Date of 01/01/2014 would be stored in OIS as follows:

Category: Forms & Claims

Subject: EN-20

Description: PMT JONE9876, 01-01-2014 

The purpose of this unique identification is to allow for easy identification 

of the final EN-20 and associated documents used in the creation of the 

ECS payment. 

It has been updated in v5.1 to:

7. Entering and Identifying Payments in OIS. Payments completed at both the DO 

and the NO are to be saved in OIS and identified as follows: 

a. DO Payments. At the time a payment is Authorized by the DD (or an 

approved person with the DD role), the EN-20, and any associated 

correspondence or memoranda associated with the final EN-20, are to be 

saved in OIS. When adding these documents to OIS, the description field 

must contain a unique identifier consisting of the letters “PMT” followed 
27

by the first 4 letters of the payee’s last name, the last 4 numbers of the 

payee SSN. For example, the EN-20 for a payment to someone named 

Jones, with a “last 4” of 9876 would be stored in OIS as follows: 

Category: Forms & Claims 

Subject: EN-20 

Description: PMT JONE9876 

The purpose of this unique identification is to allow for easy identification 

of the final EN-20 and associated documents used in the creation of the 

ECS payment.

For

RACHEL D. POND 

Director, Division of 

Energy Employees Occupational

Illness Compensation