FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph and Subject Page Date Trans. No. 

Chapter 2-1600 Recommended Decisions 

 Table of Contents . . . . . . . i 10/09 10-02 

 1 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

 2 Authority . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

 3 When a Recommended Decision 

 is Required . . . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

 4 Who Receives a Recommended 

 Decision. . . . . . . . . . . 4 10/09 10-02 

 5 Writing a Recommended 

 Decision. . . . . . . . . . . 5 10/09 10-02 

 6 Content and Format. . . . . . . 7 10/09 10-02 

 7 Types of Recommended 

 Decisions . . . . . . . . . . 14 10/09 10-02 

 8 Decision Issuance. . . . . . .. 18 10/09 10-02 

Exhibits 

 1 Sample Cover Letter for 

 Recommended Acceptance. . . . 10/09 10-02 

 2 Sample Cover Letter for Partial 

 Accept/Partial Denial . . . . 10/09 10-02 

 3 Sample Recommended Decision . . 10/09 10-02 

 4 Sample Waiver . . . . . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

 5 Sample Partial Accept/Partial 

 Denial Bifurcated Waiver. . . 10/09 10-02 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 i 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

1. Purpose and Scope. The District Office (DO) issues 

Recommended Decisions for claims filed under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA). A Recommended Decision is a written 

determination made by the Claims Examiner (CE) regarding 

the eligibility of a claimant to receive compensation 

benefits available under the EEOICPA. This chapter 

describes the procedures for issuing a Recommended 

Decision. 

2. Authority. 20 C.F.R. § 30.300 grants the DO authority 

to make determinations with regard to compensability and 

issue Recommended Decisions with respect to EEOICPA claims. 

Under this section, the DO is authorized to recommend the 

acceptance or denial of a claim for benefits under the 

EEOICPA. All Recommended Decisions are forwarded to the 

Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) for review. 

3. When a Recommended Decision is Required. A 

Recommended Decision is required in any instance where a 

claimant seeks an entitlement benefit provided for under 

either Part B or E of the EEOICPA. Entitlement benefits 

include medical benefits under Part B and/or E; lump-sum 

compensation under Part B; impairment or wage-loss award 

under Part E; and lump-sum survivor compensation under Part 

E. 

Claims made under Part B or E of EEOIPCA can involve 

multifaceted elements, filed at varying points in time, 

involving a multitude of medical conditions, or periodic 

claims for monetary lump-sum benefits, i.e. recurring wageloss and impairment. The question when a case element is 

in position to be decided and a Recommended Decision issued 

is dependent on several factors that the CE must consider. 

First, the CE must identify the parties seeking benefits; 

i.e. employee vs. survivor claim. This includes 

individuals who have filed claims or potential claimants 

who have not officially filed, but may be eligible. 

Secondly, the actual claimed entitlement benefit for which 

a decision is required must be identified. In some 

instances, there may be multiple benefits being sought 

under Part B and/or E, especially if more than one illness 

is being claimed. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 1 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

3. When a Recommended Decision is Required. (Continued) 

Based on examination of the evidence of record, development 

must then be completed in an attempt to overcome any defect 

in the case evidence that does not satisfy the eligibility 

criteria for a claimed benefit. Once development has 

occurred, the CE then performs an examination of the case 

evidence to determine whether there is sufficient basis to 

accept or deny a claim for benefit entitlement. At the 

conclusion of this assessment and all necessary 

development, a Recommended Decision is issued on the 

sufficiency of the claim. A Recommended Decision is 

required in the following situations: 

a. When a Claim is Submitted. Documents containing 

words of claim are acceptable to begin the 

adjudication process; however, the necessary 

information required to allow adjudication must be 

submitted prior to the issuance of a decision. In the 

situation of written words of claim, the CE must seek 

completion of the applicable claim form. 

(1) The CE may apply certain discretion to 

conclude that the nature of a new claim actually 

has been previously addressed in a prior 

determination under the Act. For example, a claim 

for “lung disease” is filed and denied lacking 

any diagnosed condition. Subsequent filing is 

made for “lung problems.” While the exact 

wording of the claimed condition is dissimilar, 

the nature of the claim is not unique and, in 

this situation, would not require new 

adjudication unless the claimant provides 

evidence of a more specific diagnosis. 

Additionally, no Recommended Decision is needed 

if the claimed and diagnosed conditions are 

synonymous. In such instances, the claimant 

should be notified that the condition had 

previously been denied and no further action will 

be taken. 

(2) New Medical Evidence. A claimant may submit 

new medical evidence or file a new claim form for 

a condition not yet claimed. If new medical 

evidence or a new claim is received for a 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 2 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

3. When a Recommended Decision is Required. (Continued) 

previously unclaimed condition prior to issuance 

of a Recommended Decision, the DO obtains a new 

claim form, incorporates the new condition into 

the existing claim and develops for all claimed 

conditions. Once development is complete, the DO 

issues a Recommended Decision that addresses all 

claimed conditions. 

(a) If after a claim has been adjudicated 

and a Recommended and Final Decision have 

been issued, and the claimant files a claim 

for a new condition or submits medical 

evidence establishing a condition not 

previously claimed, the DO obtains a claim 

form, develops for the newly claimed 

condition and issues a new Recommended 

Decision. 

b. On the Initiative of the Director of the Division 

of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

(DEEOIC). The Director may at any time direct the 

issuance of a Recommended Decision relative to a claim 

for compensation under the EEOICPA. For example, the 

Director may determine that a Recommended Decision, 

rather than an administrative closure, is beneficial 

in certain instances. In other situations, upon the 

issuance of a Director’s Order, the district office 

may be instructed to issue a new Recommended Decision 

to address new evidence. 

c. At the Request of a Claimant. The claimant may 

request a decision be issued in connection with 

special claim circumstances. For example, the denial 

of continuing in-home nursing services, in lieu of a 

letter decision. 

(1) Medical Benefits. In cases when a request 

for a particular medical treatment, medical 

supply, or surgery is approved or disallowed, a 

letter to the claimant advising that the benefit 

has been approved or explaining why it cannot be 

granted will often suffice without the issuance 

of a Recommended Decision. However, if a 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 3 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

3. When a Recommended Decision is Required. (Continued) 

claimant requests a formal decision, the request 

must be granted. 

A Recommended Decision to accept or deny a claim for 

benefits is required in any case unless the DO determines 

that an administrative closure is in order. Many reasons 

exist to support an administrative closure (such as the 

withdrawal of a claim). In such cases, the DO 

administratively closes the claim without issuing a 

Recommended Decision. Instead, the DO issues a letter to 

the claimant and/or representative advising of the 

administrative closure, and addresses the steps required to 

reactivate the claim. 

4. Who Receives a Recommended Decision. Each individual 

who files a claim under a case is a party to a Recommended 

Decision that decides benefit entitlement. Given the 

variant benefit filings that may exist in a single case, it 

may be necessary to divide entitlement claims to be 

addressed by separate Recommended Decisions. This will 

most often occur when one or more entitlement benefit 

claims can be decided based on the evidence of record, 

while concurrent development is required on the outstanding 

claimed components. This rule only applies to benefit 

entitlements for all claimants under Part B and E. It does 

not apply to individual claimant eligibility to a benefit. 

In other words, a recommended decision cannot be issued 

deciding any one claimant’s eligibility to receive 

benefits, without including all claimants as party to the 

decision. The CE employs appropriate discretion to decide 

the most effective course to bring timely resolution to all 

entitlement claims; however, any entitlement decision that 

will result in a positive outcome should not be delayed 

pending development of other potential entitlement. 

For example, two survivors of an employee file for lump sum 

compensation under Part B and E. Development is undertaken 

and both are found to be eligible to a Part B benefit of 

$150K because the employee had lung cancer related to 

covered employment. However, under Part E, only one of the 

survivors has submitted evidence to establish that he or 

she was under the age of 18 at the time of the employee’s 

death. The other survivor indicates he or she is having 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 4 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

4. Who Receives a Recommended Decision. (Continued) 

problems obtaining school transcripts to show full-time 

student status. In this situation, the CE proceeds to issue 

a decision on the benefit entitlement of both claimants 

under Part B, but would defer any decision on the Part E 

claim until the status of the second child’s eligibility is 

resolved. 

a. Non-Filing Claimants. The situation may arise 

where a potential survivor has been identified through 

development, but whose whereabouts are unknown or who 

does not wish to seek benefits. In these situations, 

it is impossible for the district office to include 

them as party to the Recommended Decision. In these 

situations, the CE may proceed with the issuance of 

the Recommended Decision to the remaining claimants; 

however, the decision must reference the fact that 

there is a non-filing potential claimant and that this 

individual’s eligibility to benefits cannot be 

ascertained. Any lump-sum compensation payable in 

this situation will be allocated with the presumption 

that the non-filing claimant is eligible. The nonfiling claimant’s share of compensation is held in 

abeyance until such time a claim is filed and 

adjudicated or evidence of his or her death is 

received. 

5. Writing a Recommended Decision. When the CE has 

completed development to allow for a decision involving an 

entitlement benefit, (lump-sum compensation, wageloss/impairment award, survivor compensation, and medical 

benefit) the CE issues a decision. A Recommended Decision 

either recommends acceptance or denial of entitlement 

benefits in accordance with the legal criteria set out 

under the EEOICPA. The decision is a written narrative 

providing a descriptive explanation of the justification 

for the decision. The "audience" may include the claimant, 

the claimant's representative, a Congressional staff 

member, and/or appellate reviewers. Not all of these 

individuals will be experts in workers’ compensation 

matters. Therefore, the CE must write as clearly and 

concisely as possible so that readers will not misinterpret 

the Recommended Decision. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 5 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

5. Writing a Recommended Decision. (Continued) 

Any decision issued must be well-written, use appropriate 

language to clearly communicate information, and address 

all the facets of the evidence that led to the conclusion, 

including all evidence the claimant submitted. Particularly 

with regard to the denial of benefits, the CE describes the 

specific reason(s) why the evidence fails to satisfy the 

eligibility requirements of the Act and any interpretive 

analysis relied upon to justify the decision. 

When issuing a Recommended Decision, the CE addresses only 

the conditions which have been claimed under the Act, 

citing the statutory language upon which the decision is 

based, clearly distinguishing between Part B and Part E. 

a. Use Simple Words and Short Sentences. Avoid 

technical terms and bureaucratic "jargon”, and explain 

the first time any abbreviation is used in the text. 

This approach assists readers at every level of 

education and knowledge base. 

b. Use the Active Rather than the Passive Voice. 

For example, the decision is to read "We received the 

medical report" rather than "The medical report was 

received.” 

c. Divide Lengthy Discussions into Short Paragraphs. 

d. Confine the Discussion to Relevant Issues. These 

are the issues before the CE that need to be resolved. 

It may be necessary to state an issue is pending, but 

there is no need to discuss it in detail. 

e. Address All Matters Raised by the Claimant. This 

includes any issue or medical condition relevant to 

the decision, whether raised in the initial report of 

the claim or during adjudication. Make certain to 

address all claimed conditions (accepted or denied) in 

the discussion. If the CE recommends acceptance of a 

covered condition, and the claimant has also claimed 

other conditions that are clearly not covered, the CE 

must specifically recommend denial of any condition 

not covered under the Act. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 6 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

5. Writing a Recommended Decision. (Continued) 

f. Claimant Addressees. The decision must be 

addressed to each claimant who has filed a claim 

seeking benefits under the case, and/or their 

authorized representative. This ensures that each 

person who has filed receives notification of a 

decision involving the claimed entitlement benefit, 

allows for the opportunity to object, and ensures 

uniformity in the decision process. The CE may not 

render a decision until development has been completed 

with regard to each individual claimant’s potential 

eligibility to a unique entitlement benefit. 

Individual claimant deferrals are not permitted. 

6. Content and Format. A Recommended Decision is 

comprised of a cover letter, a written decision, a 

Certificate of Service and an information sheet provided to 

a claimant explaining his or her right to challenge the 

recommendation. The CE is responsible for preparing the 

Recommended Decision and all its component parts. The 

format and content of a Recommended Decision is as follows: 

a. Cover Letter. A cover letter provides context 

and summarizes the recommendation(s) of the DO. It 

advises that the accompanying decision is a 

recommendation, and that the case file has been 

forwarded to the FAB for review and the issuance of a 

Final Decision listing the address of the FAB office 

where the case file was forwarded. The cover letter 

also advises the claimant of his or her right to waive 

any objection or to file objections within 60 days of 

the date of the Recommended Decision. 

A separate cover letter is addressed to each individual to 

whom the Recommended Decision will be delivered. This may 

include the employee, survivor(s), or representative(s). A 

separate cover letter must be issued to each claimant who 

is a party to the claim. In some instances, it may be 

necessary to tailor or individualize each cover letter to 

the specific circumstances affecting the claimant 

addressed. Exhibit 1 provides a sample cover letter for an 

acceptance or denial. Exhibit 2 provides a sample cover 

letter for a partial acceptance/partial denial. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 7 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. Content and Format. (Continued) 

b. Written Decision. The written decision is 

comprised of an Introduction, a Statement of the Case, 

Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law. Exhibit 3 

provides a sample Recommended Decision. 

(1) Introduction. This portion of a Recommended 

Decision succinctly summarizes what is being 

recommended and under what portion of the Act. 

The CE treats all claimed conditions addressed in 

the decision as either accepted, denied or 

deferred pending further development. For 

instance, following is an example of introductory 

language: 

“This is a Recommended Decision of the Denver 

District Office regarding the claim for benefits 

filed by [claimant] under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA). For the reasons set forth below, the 

Denver District Office recommends acceptance of 

the claim for benefits under Part B of the 

EEOICPA for chronic beryllium disease, and that 

[claimant] be awarded compensation in the amount 

of $37,500.00 under Part B of the Act. The 

district office also recommends that the claim 

for benefits under Part E for hearing loss be 

denied. The claim for skin cancer under both Part 

B and Part E is deferred pending further 

development. 

(2) Statement of the Case. The Statement of the 

Case is a clear and concise narrative of the 

factual chronology of the case evidence leading 

up to the Recommended Decision. It describes the 

steps the CE has taken to develop the evidence, 

the outcome of any development, and any other 

relevant factual information derived during the 

examination of the case records. The Statement 

of the Case does not include any interpretation 

of the evidence conducted by the CE, nor should 

it be overly technical covering every minute 

detail of the case evidence. It is essentially a 

story of the case evidence. Basic information 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 8 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. Content and Format. (Continued) 

that is included in this portion of a decision 

includes: 

(a) Name of the claimant or survivor and 

employee, when and where the claim was 

filed, and how the filing date was 

determined (e.g., postmark date, received in 

the DO or Resource Center); 

(b) Benefit(s) the claimant is seeking. In 

the case of a survivor claim, the 

relationship of the claimant to the employee 

and documentation submitted in support of 

the relationship, if any; 

(c) Claimed employment and evidence 

submitted to establish covered employment, 

if any; 

(d) Claimed medical condition and medical 

evidence submitted to establish a diagnosed 

illness; 

(e) Discussion of pertinent development 

actions undertaken by the DO, which focuses 

on the evidence used in reaching a decision 

to either accept or deny the claim. The CE 

describes the nature of each piece of 

evidence that was considered so that any 

reader will easily grasp how the evidence 

does or does not meet the statutory 

requirements. 

In a recommended acceptance, pertinent 

issues may include specific medical 

documents received from the claimant or 

other sources which confirm the diagnosis of 

the claimed condition, and evidence 

establishing the claimed employment and 

exposure. Also, searches conducted in the 

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM), Occupational 

History Questionnaires (OHQ), records from 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 9 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. Content and Format. (Continued) 

the Former Worker Program, and Document 

Acquisition Records (DAR) are important. 

In a recommended denial, the CE discusses, 

particularly in relation to the denied 

element, what evidence was received, what 

evidence was needed, why the evidence was 

deficient, how the DO advised the claimant 

of the deficiencies in a clear manner, and 

the claimant’s response. 

(f) Other relevant evidence submitted. 

(3) Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact 

section of a Recommended Decision is a series of 

factual determinations the CE makes based on the 

evidence of record. Findings of fact must be set 

out in a clearly defined section headed “Findings 

of Fact,” and each finding is listed numerically. 

In many instances, findings are inferences 

reasonably drawn from the evidence. A finding of 

fact does not need to be absolutely proven by the 

evidence of record to be listed in support of a 

conclusion offered. It is merely necessary for 

the CE to conclude that the evidence of record is 

sufficiently convincing to make the finding 

plausible. Findings of fact should ultimately 

support the conclusion being offered in a 

Recommended Decision 

For example, a CE searches SEM. Based on the 

outcome of that search, the CE can determine that 

the employee was exposed to one or more toxic 

substances during the course of his or her 

employment. The CE’s decision finding exposure 

would be listed in the Findings of Fact portion 

of the Recommended Decision. 

(a) The CE makes findings from the evidence. These 

findings are critical in determining whether the claimant 

is awarded benefits. The CE must draw conclusions from the 

evidence or lack of evidence in the file 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 10 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. Content and Format. (Continued) 

and not just recite the Statement of the 

Case. 

(b) The findings are fully substantiated. 

It is not sufficient to merely list the 

findings of fact. The CE must identify the 

evidence relied upon and state the rationale 

for the finding and how it relates to the 

claim. 

(c) The findings are stated in logical 

sequence. Doing so helps ensure that the 

determination is derived from the facts. 

(d) The medical evidence is addressed 

thoroughly. Regardless of the condition 

claimed, the CE must describe the medical 

evidence of record. For example, with 

respect to chest x-rays and other medical 

findings that on the whole make up the 

statutory requirements for pre/post January 

1, 1993 chronic beryllium disease (CBD), the 

CE describes the nature of each piece of 

evidence that was used to make a 

determination, so that any reviewer will 

easily grasp how the medical evidence does 

or does not meet the statutory requirement. 

(4) Conclusions of Law. A conclusion of law is 

a determination as to how the law is applied to 

the facts. In a section headed “Conclusions of 

Law,” the CE explains in a logical progression 

why the claimant is or is not entitled to 

benefits under the EEOICPA. 

(a) The CE cites conclusions and the 

relevant sections of the EEOICPA and the 

governing regulations. The citations must be 

accurate and specific to the issues 

addressed. However, the citations are not to 

be overly cited or repeated. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 11 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. Content and Format. (Continued) 

(b) The CE specifically states what medical 

benefits are being awarded, if any, and 

cites the appropriate part of the law (Part 

B and/or Part E). The medical condition that 

is diagnosed must be listed and the dates 

from which medical benefits are to be 

covered under the EEOICPA must be stated. 

(c) This section must build to a clearly 

reasoned and stated logical conclusion. The 

CE must state whether or not the claimant is 

being awarded or denied benefits under the 

EEOICPA. In the case of a denial, the CE 

clearly and properly cites why the condition 

is being denied (i.e., lack of medical 

evidence, did not establish survivorship, 

employment not during covered period). 

The conclusions of law should not state the 

specific lump-sum payment amount if the case 

is in posture to be recommended for denial. 

However, in all acceptances, including cases 

where coordination or offset of benefits 

applies, the decision must clearly explain 

how the monetary award was calculated. 

(5) Signatory Line. The signature line must 

include the name, title, and signature of the 

person who prepared the recommendation and the 

name, title, and signature of the person who 

reviewed and certified the decision. 

(6) Notice of Recommended Decision and 

Claimant’s Rights. Provides information about 

the claimant’s right to file specific objections 

to the Recommended Decision and to request either 

a review of the written record or an oral hearing 

before the FAB. A sample Notice of Recommended 

Decision and Claimant’s Rights is included a part 

of Exhibit 3. 

(7) Waiver of Rights. A waiver form is sent with 

each Recommended Decision and is to include the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 12 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. Content and Format. (Continued) 

file number, name of the employee, name of the 

claimant, and the date of the decision in the 

upper right hand corner. The claimant may waive 

his or her right to a hearing or review of the 

written record and request that the FAB issue a 

Final Decision. In this instance, the claimant 

is required to sign a waiver and return it to the 

FAB. 

In cases of waiver, the FAB may issue a Final 

Decision that accepts the findings of the DO 

prior to the 60 calendar day review period. 

Exhibit 5 provides a sample Waiver of Rights for 

simple acceptances and denials. 

(a) Right to Object. If the claimant has 

not submitted a written objection or waiver 

after 60 calendar days from the issuance of 

the Recommended Decision, his or her right 

to object has expired. The FAB may then 

issue a Final Decision. 

(b) Bifurcated Waivers. In many instances, 

the DO accepts one element of a claim and 

denies another, all within one Recommended 

Decision. It is therefore possible for a 

claimant to waive the right to object to the 

acceptance portion of the decision and file 

an objection regarding the denied portion of 

the same decision. Claimants may also 

reserve their right to object. A claimant 

has 60 days from the date the Recommended 

Decision is issued to file an objection, and 

may waive this right at any time. 

Exhibit 6 provides a sample Bifurcated 

Waiver of Rights for a partial 

acceptance/partial denial. Option 1 allows 

the claimant to waive the right to object to 

the benefits awarded but reserve the right 

to object to the findings of fact or 

conclusions of law. Option 2 allows the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 13 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

6. Content and Format. (Continued) 

claimant to waive the rights to object to 

all findings and conclusions. 

(8) Further Rights of Action. When a recommended 

decision is issued, the following rights of action 

arise: 

(a) Right to Object. A claimant who 

objects to all or part of the Recommended 

Decision must file any objections within 60 

days from the date of issuance. The claimant 

may request an oral hearing with his or her 

timely written objection. There is no 

requirement that a claimant submit evidence 

with his or her objection. 

(b) Review of the Written Record. If the 

claimant objects to all or part of the 

Recommended Decision, but does not request a 

hearing, the FAB reviews the written record 

and then issues a Final Decision or a Remand 

Order. The claimant may (but is not required 

to) submit new evidence in connection with 

the review. 

(c) Oral Hearing. If the claimant objects 

to all or part of the Recommended Decision 

and wishes to have an oral hearing to state 

his or her objections, the FAB will conduct 

such a hearing. FAB hearing procedures are 

set out in EEOICPA PM 2-1700. 

7. Types of Recommended Decisions. Due to the wide 

variety of possible benefit entitlements available under 

Part B and Part E, various claim elements may be in 

different stages of development and adjudication at any 

given time. Following are examples of several types of 

Recommended Decisions that may be necessary: 

a. Acceptance. Where the entire case can be 

accepted and no outstanding claim elements [e.g., 

wage-loss, impairment, additional claimed illness, or 

a cancer claim pending dose reconstruction at the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 14 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

7. Types of Recommended Decisions. (Continued) 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH)] need further development, the CE issues a 

Recommended Decision to accept in full. The acceptance 

addresses all the elements that have been claimed. 

b. Denial. If after all development is complete and 

all elements are in posture for denial, the CE issues 

a Recommended Decision recommending denial on a claim 

as a whole. The CE waits until every element of a 

claim has been developed, if possible, before issuing 

a denial. 

(1) Addressing all claimed elements. The CE must 

be alert to the various adjudicatory issues in 

the case and clearly identify each element being 

denied. 

(2) Where no objection is pending at the FAB, 

the CE develops all claim elements in posture for 

denial and, whenever possible, issues one 

comprehensive decision denying all possible 

claims for benefits under the EEOICPA as a whole. 

If other portions require further development, a 

partial denial/partial develop decision may also 

be necessary. 

c. Partial Accept/Partial Deny. If the CE 

determines that no further development is necessary on 

a case file and concludes that some claim elements 

should be recommended for acceptance and some for 

denial, the CE issues a Recommended Decision that 

clearly sets forth those recommendations. The claimant 

is provided with a notice of his or her rights and a 

bifurcated wavier; which provides the claimant the 

opportunity to contest only the portion of his or her 

claim which was recommended for denial, or waive his 

or her right to object to the decision as a whole (see 

Exhibit 6). 

For instance, if an illness that can be covered under 

both Part B and Part E of the Act (cancer, beryllium 

illness, chronic silicosis) is claimed and meets the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 15 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

7. Types of Recommended Decisions. (Continued) 

evidentiary requirements only under Part E but not 

under Part B, (or vice versa) the CE states that the 

Part E benefits are being accepted and the B benefits 

are being denied. 

(1) Example. A claim is filed for CBD and 

medical evidence is submitted that contains a 

medical diagnosis of CBD that is sufficient to 

meet the Part E causation burden, but does not 

meet the statutory criteria under Part B, the CE 

issues a Recommended Decision awarding benefits 

under Part E and denying benefits under Part B. 

The denial under Part B should clearly explain 

what evidence was lacking and why the case is 

being denied. The Recommended Decision clearly 

delineates the benefits being awarded and denied 

under Part B and Part E. 

d. Partial Accept/Partial Develop. When a claim 

element is fully developed and ready for acceptance, 

but other elements remain for further development 

[e.g., wage-loss, impairment, another claimed illness, 

or a cancer pending dose reconstruction at NIOSH], the 

CE issues a Recommended Decision accepting the claimed 

illness and specifies all associated benefits awarded 

under the EEOICPA as a whole. With regard to other 

claim elements requiring further development, in the 

Recommended Decision the CE advises that these 

elements are deferred until fully developed and 

adjudication is possible. Partial adjudication of a 

claim should be avoided whenever possible. 

(1) If an additional illness is outstanding, the 

CE continues development and issues another 

Recommended Decision as soon as a determination 

can be made. This situation may specifically 

arise in instances where a cancer claim is 

pending NIOSH dose reconstruction or undergoing a 

physician review for alleged synergistic effects 

of toxic exposure. 

(2) If the evidence concerning wage-loss and 

impairment, or an additional illness is 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 16 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

7. Types of Recommended Decisions. (Continued) 

insufficient to make a determination, the CE2 

designated to the FAB conducts the necessary 

development after the Recommended Decision is 

issued and the case file is pending review at the 

FAB. 

e. Partial Accept/Partial Deny/Partial Develop. If 

one portion of the claim is in posture for acceptance 

and another portion is in posture for denial, while 

yet a third portion requires additional development, 

the CE addresses all claim elements in one 

comprehensive Recommended Decision. Where one or more 

claim elements are accepted and other elements are 

either denied or deferred for additional development, 

the CE must clearly outline the status of each element 

that is accepted, denied and deferred. The claimant 

is provided with a notice of his or her rights and a 

bifurcated wavier (Exhibit 6). 

f. Multiple Claimed Conditions and Employee’s Death. 

While a survivor may claim that the employee 

contracted multiple illnesses, it is possible that the 

claim may be recommended for acceptance and award of 

full survivor benefits upon sufficient proof of only 

one illness. For instance, if the survivor claims that 

the employee contracted lung cancer, skin cancer, and 

prostate cancer and seeks benefits under Part E, and 

the evidence is sufficient to establish that it was at 

least as likely as not that the employee’s exposure to 

a toxic substance at a covered facility during a 

covered time period was a significant factor in 

contributing to the employee’s lung cancer and 

subsequent death, then the CE may recommend that the 

claim be accepted for survivor benefits under Part E 

without further development of the skin cancer and 

prostate cancer claims. 

(1) In the Recommended Decision, the CE does not 

need to accept or deny the other claimed 

conditions unless they were previously claimed by 

the deceased employee. The Recommended Decision 

acknowledges the other claimed conditions and 

advises the surviving beneficiary that no 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 17 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

7. Types of Recommended Decisions. (Continued) 

decision will be made regarding these conditions, 

as no additional benefits would result. However, 

a decision must be made if the employee filed a 

claim for these conditions prior to his or her 

death, as payment of additional medical benefits 

may be warranted. 

(2) In cases where the deceased employee 

received the maximum amount of benefits payable 

under the Act prior to death, and a survivor 

subsequently files a claim for new or additional 

conditions not previously claimed by the 

employee, the CE issues a Recommended Decision 

denying the claim and advising the claimant that 

the maximum payable benefits have been met. 

8. Decision Issuance. After preparing a Recommended 

Decision, the CE routes the decision and case file to the 

SrCE for review, signature, date, and release. 

a. Clearing the Recommended Decisions for Release. 

The SrCE or Supervisor reviews all Recommended 

Decisions. Requests for medical treatment, 

equipment/supplies, and surgery requests are reviewed 

by the CE. Medical bill processing is discussed 

further in EEOICPA PM 3-0200. 

(1) Deficiency Identified. If the SrCE 

discovers a deficiency or other problem, the 

Recommended Decision is returned to the CE with a 

detailed explanation of why the decision is not 

in posture for release. When the SrCE has 

provided comments or has extensively edited the 

Recommended Decision, the CE is to revise the 

decision accordingly. 

(2) Decision Approved. If the SrCE agrees with 

the decision, he or she signs and dates the 

Recommended Decision. (A GS-11 CE assigned as 

SrCE will have signature authority while in that 

capacity.) The date shown on the Recommended 

Decision must be the actual date on which the 

decision is mailed. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 18 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

8. Decision Issuance. (Continued) 

b. Mailing the Recommended Decision. The original 

signed and dated Recommended Decision is mailed to the 

claimant’s last known address and to the claimant’s 

designated representative, if any. Notification to 

either the claimant or the representative will be 

considered notification to both parties. See EEOICPA 

PM 2-1700 regarding decisions returned as 

undeliverable. 

(1) A copy of the Recommended Decision is filed 

in the case record. 

(2) The SrCE or CE enters the appropriate status 

codes in ECMS and reviews the entire ECMS record 

to ensure accuracy (see EEOICPA PM 2-2000 and 2-

2100). 

c. Forwarding the Case. Within one work day of 

mailing the Recommended Decision to the claimant, the 

case record must be sent to the appropriate FAB 

office. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 19 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

Sample Cover Letter for Recommended Acceptance 

Dear Claimant Name: 

Enclosed is the Notice of Recommended Decision of the 

District Office concerning your claim for benefits under 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act (EEOICPA). The District Office recommends 

acceptance of your claim for skin cancer under Part B of 

the EEOICPA, and recommends awarding benefits in the amount 

of $150,000.00. Please note that this is only a 

RECOMMENDEDATION; this is not a FINAL Decision. We caution 

you against making any financial commitments based on the 

Recommended Decision (remove this sentence if the decision 

is a denial). The Recommended Decision has been forwarded 

to the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) for their review and 

issuance of the Final Decision. 

Please read the Notice of Recommended Decision and Claimant 

Rights carefully. If you agree with the Recommended 

Decision and wish to waive any objections to it, you must 

follow the instructions for doing so provided in the 

section entitled "If You Agree with the Recommended 

Decision." If you submit or fax the attached Waiver Sheet 

(or a statement waiving the right to object) to the FAB, a 

final decision can be issued before the end of the sixty 

(60) day period for filing objections. The FAB address is: 

U. S. Department of Labor, EEOICPA 

Final Adjudication Branch 

FAB Address 

City, State ZIP 

 Fax Number: 

If you disagree with the Recommended Decision, you must 

follow the instructions provided in the section entitled 

"If You Wish to Object to the Recommended Decision." Your 

objections must be filed within sixty (60) days from the 

date of the Recommended Decision by writing to the Final 

Adjudication Branch at the address listed above. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 1 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

State Workers’ Compensation: If you receive or have 

received any benefit (money, medical benefits, vocational 

rehabilitation etc.) from a state workers’ compensation 

program for any of the same conditions being recommended 

for acceptance in this decision under Part E, you must 

notify the Final Adjudication Branch immediately. This 

includes any benefits received after the issuance of this 

recommended decision (remove this paragraph if the decision 

is a denial or a Part B decision). 

Tort Actions: If the employee or any claimant receives or 

has received any form of benefit (money, medical benefits, 

etc.) based on a lawsuit claiming that the employee was 

harmed from the same type of exposure (e.g. asbestos, 

radiation, beryllium, or any other toxic substance) upon 

which the EEOICPA claim is being recommended for acceptance 

in this decision, the Final Adjudication Branch must be 

notified immediately. This includes any benefits received 

after the issuance of this recommended decision (remove 

this paragraph if the decision is a denial). 

Should you have any questions concerning the 

recommendation, you may call the Final Adjudication Branch, 

toll free, at: 

Sincerely, 

Claims Examiner 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 2 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

Sample Cover Letter for Partial Accept/Partial Denial 

Dear Claimant Name: 

Enclosed is the Notice of Recommended Decision of the 

District Office concerning your claim for compensation 

under the Energy Employees Occupational Compensation 

Program Act (EEOICPA). The District Office recommends 

acceptance of your claim for skin cancer under Part B of 

the EEOICPA, and recommends awarding benefits in the amount 

of $150,000.00. The District office recommends denial of 

your claim for hearing loss under Part E. Please note that 

this is only a RECOMMENDEDATION; this is not a Final 

Decision. We caution against making financial commitments 

based on the anticipated receipt of an award. The 

Recommended Decision has been forwarded to the Final 

Adjudication Branch (FAB) for their review and issuance of 

the Final Decision. 

Please read the Notice of Recommended Decision and Notice 

of Rights of Action carefully, as it recommends an 

acceptance of some benefits and denial of others. You have 

several choices. Consider your options carefully as your 

choice will affect your ability to raise objections, as 

well as the steps the FAB takes in issuing a final 

decision. 

The EEOICPA provides you with a sixty day time period to 

raise written objections to any finding of fact or 

conclusion of law contained in the Recommended Decision. 

Until this sixty day time period expires, the Final 

Adjudication Branch (FAB) will not issue a final decision, 

unless you specifically advise the FAB that you wish to 

waive your right to object. Unless the decision contains an 

error or other technical deficiency, the FAB will accept 

the findings of the district office and proceed with the 

issuance of a final decision. 

Filing an objection. If you disagree with an aspect of the 

Recommended Decision, you may file a written objection. 

You should also advise the FAB whether you would like the 

FAB to consider your objections through a Review of the 

Written Record, an oral hearing, or a hearing by telephone. 

If you request a Review of the Written Record, the FAB will 

carefully consider your objections, any new evidence, as 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 1 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

well as all the evidence of record, before issuing a final 

decision. If you request an oral hearing, a hearing before 

a FAB hearing representative will be scheduled. If you 

request a hearing by telephone, a FAB hearing 

representative will conduct a hearing by telephone, rather 

than in person. During either form of hearing, you will be 

able to elaborate on your objections to the Recommended 

Decision and present additional evidence. FAB will fully 

consider these objections and any additional evidence you 

may submit prior to issuing a final decision. If you do 

not specify which option you prefer, a Review of the 

Written Record will be performed. 

Waiving your rights of objection. If you agree with the 

recommended decision, you may consider waiving your rights 

of objection in writing. You may advise FAB of your wishes 

in this situation by selecting Option 2. When you advise

FAB of your wish, FAB will issue a final decision without 

waiting for the sixty day time period to expire.

Waiving your rights of objection to the aspect of the 

recommendation approving benefits. Since the Recommended 

Decision recommends an acceptance of some benefits and a 

denial of others, you may wish for FAB to expedite an 

issuance of a final decision awarding you benefits, while 

retaining your right to object to the recommended denial of 

other benefits. You may advise FAB of your wishes in this 

situation in writing by selecting option 1 on the enclosed 

waiver form. If you choose to file objections, you must do 

so within the sixty day time period, following the 

directions described in “Filing an objection.” 

The FAB address is: 

Final Adjudication Branch 

Attn: District Manager 

(FAB Office Address) 

If you fail to file written objections to this decision 

within 60 days of the date of this decision your right to 

challenge this recommended decision will be waived for all 

purposes and you will not be able to seek further review of 

this decision at this time. Once a final decision is 

issued, you may file a request for reconsideration within 

30 calendar days of the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 2 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

issuance of a FAB final decision. Or you may request, in 

writing, that your claim be reopened at any time following 

a FAB final decision. 

State Workers’ Compensation: If you receive or have 

received any benefit (money, medical benefits, vocational 

rehabilitation etc.) from a state workers’ compensation 

program for any of the same conditions being recommended 

for acceptance in this decision under Part E, you must 

notify the Final Adjudication Branch immediately. This 

includes any benefits received after the issuance of this 

recommended decision (remove this paragraph if the decision 

is a denial or Part B decision). 

Tort Actions: If the employee or any claimant receives or 

has received any form of benefit (money, medical benefits, 

etc.) based on a lawsuit claiming that the employee was 

harmed from the same type of exposure (e.g. asbestos, 

radiation, beryllium, or any other toxic substance) upon 

which the EEOICPA claim is being recommended for acceptance 

in this decision, the Final Adjudication Branch must be 

notified immediately. This includes any benefits received 

after the issuance of this recommended decision (remove 

this paragraph if the decision is a denial). 

Should you have any questions concerning the 

recommendation, you may call the Final Adjudication Branch, 

toll free, at: (FAB Office telephone number) 

Sincerely, 

Claims Examiner 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 3 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

Sample Recommended Decision 

EMPLOYEE: Steven C. Smith 

CLAIMANT: Steven C. Smith

FILE NUMBER: 123-45-6789 

 

NOTICE OF RECOMMENDED DECISION 

This is a Recommended Decision of the Jacksonville District 

Office concerning a claim for benefits under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act

(EEOICPA). The District Office recommends acceptance of 

the claim for reactive airway disease and the consequential 

illness of atrial fibrillation under Part E of the Act. The 

District Office further recommends denial of the claim for 

squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the arm under both Part B 

and Part E of the Act, and a denial of chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease (COPD) under Part E of the Act. The 

claims for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the arm under both 

Part B and Part E of the Act are being deferred pending 

further development. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

The evidence of record shows that on June 24, 2004, the 

employee, Steven C. Smith filed Form EE-1, Claim for 

Benefits under the EEOICPA. The employee claimed he had 

developed SCC of the arm, COPD, atrial fibrillation, 

reactive airway disease and BCC of the arm as a result of 

his employment at a Department of Energy (DOE) Facility. 

Form EE-3, Employment History, states that the employee 

worked for E.I. DuPont at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in 

Aiken, S.C. from September 1974 to March 2004. The Oak 

Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) and the 

DOE confirmed employment with E.I. DuPont at the SRS from 

September 1, 1974 to June 1, 1989 and Westinghouse at the 

SRS from April 1, 1989 to February 29, 2004. The SRS 

located in Aiken, SC is a covered DOE facility as listed on 

their website of covered facilities. 

Medical evidence submitted with the claim includes a 

medical narrative dated February 9, 1994, signed by Dr. 

Joseph Collins, M.D. who provided a background to the 

employee’s airway dysfunction. Dr. Collins stated in his

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009 

Page 1 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

report that in April 1992, the laboratory in which the 

employee worked was flooded and resulted in significant 

contamination and overgrowth of bacteria and fungi. As a 

result, the rugs were cleaned and a chemical reaction 

occurred between the cleansing agent and the rug, thereby 

creating a toxic chemical substance. The carpet cleaning 

process created a problem with shortness of breath and 

difficulty in breathing. The employee also had another 

reaction to a carpet cleansing in January 1993. 

Dr. Collins stated that the airway symptoms that the 

employee exhibits are intermittent and occur with exposure 

to a variety of substances and situations, however, 

problems are enough to be clinically symptomatic, although 

there are no daily symptoms. In his narrative, Dr. Collins 

noted that the employee has no history of childhood asthma, 

hay fever, or food allergies; therefore, he concluded that 

the employee’s clinical symptoms and presentation strongly 

suggest reactive airway disease. 

Under Part E of the Act, specific criteria must be met to 

establish the employee contracted an illness through 

exposure at a DOE covered facility. A covered illness 

means an illness or death resulting from exposure to a 

toxic substance(s), and that this substance(s) was “at 

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

aggravating or contributing to the claimed illness(es). 

An occupational history interview was conducted with the 

employee on November 12, 2008. He stated that he worked as 

a microbial scientist at the SRS; he was responsible for 

collecting and processing water and sediment samples. The 

employee also stated that he collected materials that were 

contaminated with heavy metals and organic contaminate. The 

District Office performed searches of the U. S. Department 

of Labor Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) for toxic substances 

that may have a health effect relating to reactive airway 

disease. The SEM does not link any toxic substances to the 

health effect of reactive airway disease. 

Therefore, on April 14, 2009, the case file was referred to 

a District Medical Consultant (DMC) for further review to 

determine if the diagnosis of reactive airway disease is a 

sufficient diagnosis to conclude that the employee has a 

diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009 

Page 2 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

The DMC was also asked to review the case file to determine 

whether the exposure to toxic substances while employed at 

the DOE facility was a significant factor in aggravating, 

contributing to or causing his condition of atrial 

fibrillation. 

On May 11, 2009, the District Office received the DMC’s 

report. In her report, the DMC opined that Mr. Smith’s 

condition of reactive airway disease does not fit into the 

criteria of COPD. He does not have evidence of chronic 

airway obstruction or chronic bronchitis. A second 

pulmonary opinion of Dr. Collins, dated February 9, 1994, 

showed that Mr. Smith’s reactive airway disease was his 

only pulmonary diagnosis. Further supporting this is a PFT 

that was performed on September 13, 1995 which was normal. 

However, the DMC stated that it is at least as likely as 

not that Mr. Smith’s exposure to toxic substances while 

working at DOE facilities was a significant factor in 

causing, contributing to, or aggravating his condition of 

reactive airway disease when exposed to well known 

environmental agents relating to a flooded indoor 

environment with contamination of significant microbial and 

fungal species while working at DOE facilities. 

Addressing atrial fibrillation, the DMC stated that it is 

not at least as likely as not that Mr. Smith’s exposure to 

toxic substances while working at DOE facilities was a 

significant factor in causing contributing to, or 

aggravating his condition of atrial fibrillation. However, 

the DMC concluded that it is at least as likely as not that 

Mr. Smith’s treatment for reactive airway disease with 

bronchodilators was a significant factor in contributing to 

or aggravating his condition of atrial fibrillation. 

For the claimed conditions of COPD and SCC of the arm, the 

employee was sent letters on November 20, 2008, December 

19, 2008, January 27, 2009, and February 27, 2009. The 

District Office requested that the employee submit a 

narrative medical report from a physician about the claimed 

conditions along with a diagnosis, including a date of 

diagnosis, a history of the conditions, physical findings 

from examination and pathology reports. The employee was 

advised that he had 30 days to submit the required medical 

documentation. As of this date, no medical documentation 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009 

Page 3 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

has been received to establish that the employee has been 

diagnosed with these conditions. 

The employee has stated that he has not filed for or 

received compensation or medical coverage in connection 

with the conditions of reactive airway disease or atrial 

fibrillation; that he has not filed for state workers’ 

compensation benefits in connection with the condition of 

reactive airway disease or rapid heart beat; and that he 

has never pled guilty or been convicted of any charges 

connected with an application for or receipt of federal or 

state workers’ compensation. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. The employee filed a claim for benefits on June 24, 

2004. 

2. The employee was a covered DOE contractor at the SRS 

in Aiken, SC from September 1, 1974 to February 29, 

2004. 

3. There is sufficient evidence to show that the 

employee’s exposure to a workplace toxic substance was 

a significant factor that “at least as likely as not” 

caused, aggravated, or contributed to the illness of 

reactive airway disease 

4. The evidence shows that the employee’s illness of 

reactive airway disease contributed to, or aggravated 

his condition of atrial fibrillation. 

5. No substantial medical records were submitted with the 

claim diagnosing the employee with COPD and SCC of the 

arm. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

The employee is a covered DOE contractor employee with a 

covered illness as those terms are defined in 42 U.S.C. § 

7385s(1) and § 7385s(2). 

It is “at least as likely as not” that exposure to a toxic 

substance at a DOE facility was a significant factor in 

aggravating, contributing to, or causing the employee’s 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009 

Page 4 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

reactive airway disease and the consequential illness of 

atrial fibrillation, and it is “at least as likely as not” 

that the exposure to such toxic substance was related to 

employment at a DOE facility, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7385s4(c)(1)(A) and §7385s-4(c)(1)(B). 

Therefore, it is recommended that the employee’s claim for 

benefits under Part E of the Act be accepted for the 

covered illness of reactive airway disease and the 

consequential illness of atrial fibrillation and that the 

employee be awarded medical benefits for those illnesses, 

commencing on November 12, 2008, the date of filing, in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. §7385s-8. 

The medical evidence did not establish an occupational or 

covered illness for COPD and SCC of the arm under Parts B 

and E of the Act, at the DOE facility in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 7384 l (15) and 42 U.S.C. 7385s (2). The employee’s 

claim for benefits under the Energy Employees’ Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act for COPD and SCC of the 

arm is therefore recommended for denial. 

Prepared by: 

 

________________________ ____________ 

(Name) Date 

Claims Examiner 

Reviewed and Certified by: 

________________________ ___________ 

(Name) Date 

Senior Claims Examiner 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009 

Page 5 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

Sample Notice of Recommended Decision and Claimant Rights 

NOTICE OF RECOMMENDED DECISION AND CLAIMANT RIGHTS 

The District Office has issued the attached recommended 

decision on your claim under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. This notice 

explains how to file objections to the recommended 

decision. This notice also explains what to do if you 

agree with the recommended decision and want the Final 

Adjudication Branch (FAB) to issue a final decision before 

the 60-day period to object has ended. Read the 

instructions contained in this notice carefully. 

IF YOU WISH TO OBJECT TO THE RECOMMENDED DECISION: 

If you disagree with all or part of the recommended 

decision, you MUST file your objections within sixty (60) 

days from the date of the recommended decision by writing 

to the FAB at: 

U.S. Department of Labor, DEEOIC 

Attn: Final Adjudication Branch 

FAB Address 

City, State ZIP 

Fax #: 

If you want an informal oral hearing on your objections, at 

which time you will be given the opportunity to present 

both oral testimony and written evidence in support of your 

claim, you MUST request a hearing when you file your 

objections. If you have special needs (e.g., physical 

handicap, dates unavailable, driving limitations, etc.) 

relating to the scheduling (time and location) of the 

hearing, those needs must be identified in your letter to 

the FAB requesting a hearing. In the absence of such a 

special need request, the FAB scheduler will schedule the 

hearing and you will be notified of the time and place. If 

you do not include a request for a hearing with your 

objections, the FAB will consider your objections through a 

review of the written record, which will also give you the 

opportunity to present written evidence in support of your 

claim. If you fail to file any objections to the 

recommended decision within the 60-day period, the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009 

Page 6 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

recommended decision may be affirmed by the FAB and your 

right to challenge it will be waived for all purposes. 

IF YOU AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDED DECISION: 

If you agree with the recommended decision and wish for it 

to be affirmed in a final decision without change, you may 

submit a written statement waiving your right to object to 

it to the FAB at the above address. This action will allow 

the FAB to issue a final decision on your claim before the 

end of the 60-day period for filing objections. If you 

wish to object to only part of the recommended decision and 

waive any objections to the remaining parts of the 

decision, you may do so. In that situation, the FAB may 

issue a final decision affirming the parts of the 

recommended decision to which you do not object. 

BE SURE TO PRINT YOUR NAME, FILE NUMBER AND DATE OF THE 

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON ANY CORRESPONDENCE SUBMITTED TO THE 

FAB. 

Please be advised that the final decision on your claim may 

be posted on the agency’s website if it contains 

significant findings of fact or conclusions of law that 

might be of interest to the public. If it is posted, your 

final decision will not contain your file number, nor will 

it identify you or your family members by name. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009 

Page 7 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

Sample Waiver

 

File Number: 

 Employee: 

 Claimant: 

 Date of Decision: 

Final Adjudication Branch 

U.S. Department of Labor – DEEOIC 

Attn.: District Manager 

FAB Address 

City, State ZIP 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I, _______________________, being fully informed of my 

right to object to any of the findings of fact and/or 

conclusions of law contained in the recommended decision 

issued on my claim for compensation under the Energy 

Employees’ Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, 

do hereby waive those rights. 

_______________________ 

 Signature 

 _______________________ 

 Date 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 4 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

Sample Partial Accept/Partial Denial Bifurcated Waiver 

 

 File Number: 

 Employee: 

 Claimant: 

 Date of Decision: 

Final Adjudication Branch 

U.S. Department of Labor, EEOICPA 

FAB Street Address 

City, State, ZIP 

Dear Sir or Madam: File Number: 

(Option 1) 

I, ____________________, being fully informed of my right to 

object to any of the findings of fact and/or conclusions of 

law contained in the recommended decision issued on my claim 

for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act, do hereby waive those rights 

only as those rights pertain to the portion of my claim 

recommended for acceptance. I do, however, reserve my right 

to object to the findings of fact and/or conclusions of law 

contained in the recommended decision that recommend denial of 

claimed benefits. 

I understand that should I choose to file an objection, I may 

either attach such objection to this form or submit a separate 

written objection to the address listed above within 60 days 

of the date of issuance of the recommended decision. 

_______________________ 

Signature Date 

(Option 2) 

I, ____________________, being fully informed of my right to 

object to any of the findings of fact and/or conclusions of 

law contained in the recommended decision issued on my claim 

for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act, do hereby waive those 

rights. 

_______________________ 

Signature Date 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 5 

October 2009 

Page 1 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1600 

Part 2 – Claims Recommended Decisions 

____________________________________________________________ 

(NOTE ON WAIVER: If you wish to file a waiver of 

objections, please select and sign only one of the above 

options. Select Option 1 to waive your right to object to 

the portion of your claim recommended for acceptance but 

reserve your right to object to the recommended denial of 

benefits. Select the Option 2 to waive your rights to 

object to ALL findings and conclusions.) 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 5 

October 2009 

Page 2 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph and Subject Page Date Trans. No. 

Chapter 2-1700 FAB Review Process 

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . i 10/09 10-02 

1 Purpose and Scope. . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

2 Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

3 Organization . . . . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

4 Processing, Monitoring, and 

 Transferring Case Files. . . . 2 10/09 10-02 

5 Objections, Hearing Requests 

 and Waivers. . . . . . . . . . 4 10/09 10-02 

6 Receipt of New Medical Evidence 

 or New Claim . . . . . . . . . 9 10/09 10-02 

7 One Year Requirement . . . . . . 13 10/09 10-02 

8 CE2 Designated to the FAB . . . . 14 10/09 10-02 

Exhibits 

1 Sample Cover Letter, Partial 

 Acceptance/Partial Denial RD 10/09 10-02 

2 Sample Waiver, Partial 

 Acceptance/Partial Denial RD 10/09 10-02 

3 Sample Letter to Postmaster 10/09 10-02 

4 Sample Change of Address Letter 10/09 10-02 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 i 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

1. Purpose and Scope. This chapter describes the functions of 

the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB), focusing on the 

administrative and preparatory aspects of its work. The new 

unified EEOICPA Procedure Manual (PM) 2-1800 addresses FAB 

decisions, including how the FAB reviews recommended decisions 

issued by District Offices (DOs), evaluates certain evidence and 

objections, schedules and conducts hearings, reviews requests 

for reconsideration of FAB final decisions, issues remand 

orders, and issues final decisions on claims filed pursuant to 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act (EEOICPA). 

2. Authority. The regulations governing the implementation of 

EEOICPA specify at 20 C.F.R. § 30.300 that each recommended 

decision (RD) is to be forwarded to the FAB for issuance of a 

final decision (FD). Section 30.310 allows a claimant to 

object, in writing, to all or part of the RD within 60 calendar 

days from the date the RD is issued. If a claimant requests a 

hearing within the 60 day time period, a FAB hearing 

representative will conduct a hearing, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 

30.314. Otherwise, the objections will be responded to by a 

review of the written record, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 30.312. 

Whether or not an objection is filed, the FAB reviews all RDs, 

all arguments and evidence of record, and issues a FD pursuant 

to 20 C.F.R. § 30.316 or a remand order pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 

30.317. Also, the FAB reviews claimant requests for 

reconsideration of a FD under 20 C.F.R. § 30.319. FAB can also 

issue a FD reversing the findings and conclusions of the RD in 

certain circumstances. 

3. Organization. The Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) is a 

National Office organization with District Office locations 

(FAB-DOs) in: Jacksonville, Florida; Cleveland, Ohio; Denver, 

Colorado; and Seattle, Washington. While the FAB-DO is located 

with the adjudicatory DO, it is a distinct entity with a 

separate operational structure and managed by a separate on-site 

FAB manager. In addition to the FAB-DOs, a National Office 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. 

 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 1 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

3. Organization. (Continued) 

a. The FAB Chief and Assistant Branch Chiefs: 

(1) Coordinate the administration of the four FAB-DOs 

and the FAB-NO. Oversee policy implementation, manage 

adjudication timeliness, and ensure general compliance 

with FAB procedures. 

 

(a) Hearing requests received by FAB-DOs are 

sent to the FAB-NO for assignment. A hearing 

coordinator as designated by the FAB Chief 

assigns all hearings nationwide. 

(2) Can redistribute certain case files at their 

discretion to ensure balanced case loads among the 

four FAB-DOs and the FAB-NO. 

b. The FAB-NO and FAB-DOs: 

(1) Reviews RDs, conducts hearings, reviews of the 

written record, and issues FDs or remand orders on 

reviewed cases. The cases reviewed by FAB-NO and the 

cases on which FAB-NO conducts hearings can originate 

from any DO. A FAB Hearing Representative can be 

assigned a hearing anywhere in the nation; not just in 

their FAB office’s jurisdiction. 

(2) Processes requests for reconsideration of FDs. 

(3) Works with Co-Located Secondary Claims Examiners 

(CE2) who develop cases and issue RDs in certain cases 

with pending actions in the FAB unit. 

 

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. Upon receipt of the file, FAB assigns a 

docket number to each individual claimant. A separate docket 

number is assigned for claims under Part B and for claims under 

Part E. Once a docket number has been assigned, that docket 

number remains the docket number for the life of the claim. No 

new docket number is created after the issuance of a new RD. 

Because each FAB office, including the FAB-NO, is separate and 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 2 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Processing, Monitoring, and Transferring Case Files. 

(Continued) 

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

operation. 

a. Initial Screening/Review. A case file received from 

the DO is assigned and delivered to the responsible FAB 

Claims Examiner (CE) or Hearing Representative (HR) for 

initial review. The initial review should be completed 

within 15 days of the issuance of the RD. The CE or HR 

reviews the case file for accuracy and determines whether 

the claimant has filed a waiver, a written objection(s), or 

a request for a hearing. 

(1) Should the claimant request a hearing, the case 

file is forwarded to the FAB-NO hearing coordinator. 

(2) During the initial review, the CE or HR makes a 

preliminary determination of whether additional 

development is necessary prior to issuance of a FD. 

If so, the additional development should be done at 

the FAB. 

 

(3) FAB is responsible for any adjudication issues 

before the FAB that need development, such as 

obtaining a marriage certificate or updating a State 

Workers’ Compensation, tort, and fraud questionnaire. 

(4) The Co-Located Secondary Claims Examiner (CE2) is 

responsible for any development issues on pending 

claim elements that are not currently being addressed 

by the FAB (i.e., pending claimed illnesses, NIOSH 

DRs, impairment and/or wage loss claims) where a RD 

has not been issued. In this instance, FAB forwards 

the case file to the CE2 for development and/or review 

of the new evidence received while the case file is at 

FAB on a pending adjudicatory issue. This includes 

receipt of impairment reports, NIOSH DRs, requests for 

wage loss, etc., if these issues are not before the 

FAB. 

(5) Specific procedures for case processing by CE2 

can be found in paragraph 8 below. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 3 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Processing, Monitoring, and Transferring Case Files. 

(Continued) 

b. File Maintenance After FD. 

(1) If a FD has been issued on all claim elements 

addressed by a RD, the FAB may return the case to the 

DO for processing payment, further development, or 

storage. 

(2) If multiple RDs have been issued, and one RD is 

still pending and one FD has been issued awarding 

compensation, the FAB retains the file. The file will 

be sent to the originating DO upon request for 

issuance of payment. A red transfer sheet will be 

attached to the case alerting the DO that the case has 

a pending FD and must be returned to the FAB as soon 

as possible. Since this case will no longer show on 

any FAB report, the responsible FAB office must track 

the case manually to ensure that the case is returned 

in time to issue a timely FD on the pending claim. 

Once all claim issues before the FAB are complete, the 

file is returned to the DO for further development, 

adjudication or storage. 

c. ECMS Coding. FAB CEs and HRs must check ECMS coding 

entered by the DO to ensure accuracy and must also properly 

record in ECMS all FAB actions taken while processing an 

FD. This includes updating status codes, entering notes, 

documenting telephone calls, tracking case file locations, 

and updating the medical or employment history. 

Under no circumstances may FAB personnel delete any ECMS 

code that relates to timeliness. Timeliness codes can only 

be deleted by, or with the written pre-approval of, a FAB 

manager. 

5. Objections, Hearing Requests, and Waivers. The regulations 

allow a claimant to file written objections to all or part of a 

RD. The claimant may also request a hearing on the RD. The 

claimant may waive these rights to all or part of a RD. 

a. Objections. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 4 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Objections, Hearing Requests, and Waivers. (Continued) 

(1) Timeliness. A claimant has 60 calendar days from 

the date of the RD to file an objection in writing. 

The claimant does not need to specify the basis for 

the objection for it to be considered but can merely 

state that he or she disagrees with a finding of fact, 

a conclusion of law, or the RD generally. 

A written objection is considered timely if the 

envelope containing it is postmarked no later than the 

60th calendar day after the RD issuance date (the date 

of the RD is not included in the 60 calendar days). If 

the 60th day falls on a non-business day, the envelope 

must be postmarked by the next business day for the 

objection to be considered timely filed. If no 

postmark is available, the date of the objection is 

considered to be the earliest date received in the 

DEEOIC office or resource center as determined by the 

date stamp. As long as at least one objection is 

timely filed by a claimant, the FAB must consider ALL 

objections filed by that claimant, even objections 

raised after the 60-day period has expired. 

(2) Letter of Acknowledgment. Upon receipt of a 

timely filed written objection, the FAB acknowledges 

receipt of the objection in writing and informs the 

claimant that he or she may submit additional evidence 

in support of the claim within 20 days. 

(3) Effect. The FAB considers a timely filed 

objection to be an objection to the entire RD, unless 

the claimant has also filed a written waiver of his or 

her right to object to a specified portion of the 

decision (see paragraph 5.c(3) below regarding 

bifurcated waivers) or the claimant specifies that the 

objections only pertain to a certain aspect of the RD. 

In the former case, the FAB can immediately issue a FD 

concerning the waived portion. In the latter case, the 

FAB must wait for the expiration of the full 60 days 

before issuing an FD on the aspect of the RD not 

objected to. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 5 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Objections, Hearing Requests, and Waivers. (Continued) 

(4) Processing Objections. Upon receipt of a timely 

written objection, the FAB must review the written 

record (RWR) prior to issuance of the FD. 

(5) Objections Regarding Dose Reconstruction. If the 

claimant objects to the Department of Health and Human 

Service (HHS) reconstruction of the radiation dose to 

which the employee was exposed, FAB evaluates the 

factual findings upon which HHS based the dose 

reconstruction. 

The DEEOIC Health Physicist (HP) serves as the liaison 

between NIOSH and DOL on all issues related to dose 

reconstruction. All objections related to dose 

reconstruction must be sent to a DEEOIC HP for review, 

unless the objections are solely related to factual 

findings, i.e., whether the facts upon which the dose 

reconstruction report was based were correct. 

(a) Factual Objection: If the HR or CE 

determines that the factual evidence reviewed by 

NIOSH was properly addressed, the HR or CE 

accepts NIOSH’s findings, in which case no 

referral to a DEEOIC HP is necessary. However, 

if the HR or CE determines that NIOSH did not 

review substantial factual evidence, he or she 

contacts a DEEOIC HP to determine if a rework of 

the dose reconstruction is necessary. 

If the DEEOIC HP determines that a rework of the 

dose reconstruction is necessary, the HR or CE 

then remands the case to the DO for referral to 

NIOSH for a rework. 

(b) Technical Objection: A technical objection 

may involve either methodology or application of 

methodology. Examples of methodology of dose 

reconstruction may include but is not limited to 

analyzing specific characteristics of the 

monitoring procedures in a given work setting; 

identifying events or processes that were 

unmonitored; identifying the types and quantities 

of radioactive materials involved and using 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 6 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Objections, Hearing Requests, and Waivers. (Continued) 

current models for calculating internal dose. The 

NIOSH "efficiency" process of using overestimates 

and underestimates in dose reconstruction is 

another example of a methodology. Upon receipt of 

the technical objection(s), the HR or CE 

discusses it with his or her supervisor to obtain 

approval to submit the objection(s) for DEEOIC HP 

review. The HR or CE needs prior approval from a 

FAB supervisor on all technical objections 

submitted to the DEEOIC HP for review. FAB and 

Policy Branch take the following steps to track 

technical objections submitted for DEEOIC HP 

review. 

 

(i) Prepare a memo to the DEEOIC HP that 

identifies only the NIOSH technical 

objections (not including any factual 

objections). 

(ii) Attach the memo (in addition to the 

NIOSH dose reconstruction report, IREP 

summary for each cancer and CATI summary for 

each claimant from the NIOSH disc) to an email message addressed to the DEEOIC HP 

with copies to addressees as directed by the 

Policy Branch. 

(iii) The e-mail message should contain the 

following information in the subject line: 

the HR or CE’s FAB office location; “Tech 

Obj – employee’s last name”; the last 4 

digits of the claim #; and the name of the 

covered facility, e.g., (FAB NO) Tech ObjSmith 4112(Hanford). 

 

(iv) The HR or CE spindles the memo in the 

file and documents ECMS Notes to explain 

that supervisory approval has been granted 

and that the aforementioned actions have 

been completed. 

(v) Upon receipt of the technical 

objection(s), the DEEOIC HP determines 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 7 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Objections, Hearing Requests, and Waivers. (Continued) 

whether the technical objection is one of 

application or methodology. As part of this 

review, he or she refers pertinent parts of 

the case and the objections to NIOSH for its 

opinion on the objections. NIOSH is asked 

to respond within 30 days. The DEEOIC HP 

then sends his or her written opinion (and 

NIOSH’s opinion, if any) to FAB. Upon 

receipt of the DEEOIC HP’s review of 

technical objections, the HR or CE spindles 

the HR’s responses in the file. 

(c) While the dose reconstruction is the 

responsibility of NIOSH, the calculation of the 

probability of causation is the responsibility 

of the DEEOIC. Therefore, FAB may consider 

objections to the manner in which the DO applied 

NIOSH’s regulatory probability of causation 

guidelines. 

 

b. Hearing Requests. A claimant has 60 calendar days 

from the date the DO issues a RD to file a written request 

for a hearing. A hearing request is considered timely if 

the envelope containing the request is postmarked no later 

than the 60th day after the RD issuance date. If no 

postmark is available, timeliness is determined based on 

the earliest date received in the DEEOIC office or resource 

center as shown by the date stamp. Should the claimant 

request a hearing, the case file is to be forwarded to the 

FAB-NO hearing coordinator for scheduling of a hearing and 

assignment of the case to a HR. 

c. Waivers. FAB may issue a FD at any point after 

receiving a written notice of waiver. To expedite the FAB 

review process, the DO must immediately forward all signed 

waivers to FAB upon receipt. 

 

(1) Implied Waivers. A claimant’s rights to object 

and/or to request a hearing are considered waived if 

not timely exercised. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 8 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Objections, Hearing Requests, and Waivers. (Continued) 

(2) Signed Waivers. A claimant may waive his or her 

rights to object and to request a hearing by 

submitting a signed waiver form to the DO or the FAB 

within 60 calendar days of the RD issuance date. The 

submission of a signed waiver denotes the claimant’s 

willingness to accept the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law reached by the DO in the RD. 

(3) Bifurcated Waivers. By submitting a bifurcated 

waiver, a claimant may waive his or her rights to 

object to one portion of the decision while retaining 

his or her rights to object to another portion of the 

decision. Exhibit 1 shows a sample cover letter for 

partial acceptance/partial denial that the DO issues 

with the recommended decision. Exhibit 2 shows the 

waiver form that is sent with partial 

acceptance/partial denial RDs. This waiver form 

provides the claimant with two options if he or she 

chooses to waive the right to object. 

If the claimant files a bifurcated waiver, the FAB 

issues a timely FD adjudicating the waived portion of 

the RD if possible. FAB then issues a separate FD 

adjudicating the objected-to portion of the RD after a 

review of the written record or a hearing, as 

requested. 

6. Receipt of New Medical Evidence or New Claim. 

a. Transferring Documents. If the DO receives new 

medical evidence or a new claim while the case file is at 

FAB, the DO promptly transfers the documents to the FAB 

office where the case file is located. Since the district 

FAB does not have access to add a new claim to the case, 

the FAB transfers the case file to the CE2 to add a new 

claim or a new medical condition to an existing claim in 

ECMS and to develop the claim if necessary. If FAB receives 

new medical evidence or a new claim form while the case 

file is at a DO, FAB promptly transfers the documents to 

the DO where the case file is located. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 9 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

6. Receipt of New Medical Evidence or New Claim. (Continued) 

b. New Medical Evidence Received. If FAB has the case 

file, receives new medical evidence, and has not issued the 

FD, the CE or HR reviews the new medical evidence and 

determines if the evidence pertains to a claimed condition 

or to a new, as-yet-unclaimed condition. 

(1) New Medical Evidence of a Claimed Condition. If 

the evidence is of a claimed condition and the RD 

recommends denial of benefits based on insufficient 

evidence relating to that condition, FAB has the 

discretion to determine if the new evidence, when 

reasonably considered with the totality of the 

evidence, is likely to support a reversal of the RD in 

favor of the claimant. 

(a) If FAB concludes that the new medical 

evidence of the previously claimed condition 

supports a reversal of the RD to deny the 

condition, and no further development is needed, 

FAB reverses the decision in favor of the 

claimant and accepts the claim. 

(b) If FAB concludes that the new medical 

evidence of the claimed condition does not 

support a reversal of the RD to deny, FAB reviews 

the RD for accuracy, reasoning, rationale and a 

thorough discussion of the evidence that supports 

the conclusions in the RD and either remands the 

decision for further development or upholds the 

denial. 

(2) New Medical Evidence of an Unclaimed Condition. 

If new evidence is of a condition that has not been 

claimed, the FAB proceeds with its review of the case 

and issues the FD on the claimed conditions. Also, 

the FAB has the discretion to determine if the new 

evidence, when considered with the totality of the 

evidence, is likely to lead to acceptance of benefits 

if the claimant filed a new claim based on such 

evidence. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 10 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

6. Receipt of New Medical Evidence or New Claim. (Continued) 

If FAB determines that coverage is likely, FAB sends 

the case to the CE2 who issues a letter to the 

claimant addressing receipt of the new evidence and 

explaining the ability to file a new claim form. In 

this situation, FAB may issue the FD on the claimed 

conditions without waiting for a response from the 

claimant. 

c. New Claim Filed. If FAB has the case file, receives a 

new claim from a current claimant, and has not issued the 

FD, the CE or HR reviews the new claim and determines if 

any medical condition is being claimed for the first time. 

If not, FAB acknowledges receipt of the new claim in 

writing and advises that it will not lead to further 

development as no new medical conditions were claimed. 

However, in claims involving skin cancer, a subsequent 

claim for skin cancer may lead to the need for further 

development if it involves an additional skin cancer. 

(1) New Condition Claimed, Case in Posture for 

Denial. If a claim for a new medical condition is 

filed while the case is at FAB for denial of benefits, 

FAB has the discretion to determine if the new claimed 

condition, when considered with the totality of the 

evidence, is likely to lead to acceptance of benefits 

for the condition presently before FAB. 

(a) If FAB determines that coverage is likely, 

FAB remands the case to the DO without issuing a 

FD. 

(b) If FAB determines that coverage is not 

likely, FAB does not remand the case. This issue 

should be forwarded to the CE2 for development. 

FAB issues a FD on the conditions adjudicated in 

the RD. FAB notes in the opening of the FD that 

the new claim was received and development is 

pending by the DO and that they will receive a 

new RD on the new claim. 

After issuing the FD, the FAB returns the case 

file to the DO for development of the newly 

claimed medical condition and attaches a 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 11 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

6. Receipt of New Medical Evidence or New Claim. (Continued) 

memorandum to the front of the case file alerting 

the DO to the new claim. 

(2) New Condition Claimed, Case in Posture for 

Acceptance. If a claim for a new medical condition is 

filed while the case is at FAB in posture for 

acceptance of benefits, FAB forwards the case to the 

CE2 to acknowledge receipt of the new claim and to 

advise that the DO will develop the newly claimed 

condition. FAB issues a FD on the conditions 

adjudicated in the RD. 

(3) New Claimant. If a new claim is received while 

the case is at FAB, and the claimant had not 

previously filed a claim, FAB has the discretion to 

determine if the entry of an additional claimant 

necessitates remand of the case. 

(a) If FAB determines that the entry of a new 

claimant does not necessitate remand of the RD 

currently under review, FAB sends the new claim 

to the CE2 to enter it into ECMS within 5 days of 

receipt. The case is returned to FAB to issue a 

FD on the claim under review. Upon issuing the 

FD, a memorandum is spindled at the top of the 

case file stating that a new claimant has been 

added in ECMS and the case file is returned to 

the DO for development of the new claim. 

Example: If the employee’s widow is recommended 

for acceptance under Part E and the employee’s 

mother files a claim, this would not necessitate 

a remand since the employee’s mother would not be 

entitled to survivor benefits. 

(b) If FAB determines that the entry of a new 

claimant necessitates a remand, FAB may remand 

the case for further development. 

Example: If an additional eligible child files a 

claim, this would necessitate a remand. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 12 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. One Year Requirement. To prevent undue delays in 

adjudication, 20 C.F.R. § 30.316(c) imposes a one-year limit on 

the amount of time a RD can be pending at the FAB before it 

automatically becomes a FD. Once the one year time frame has 

elapsed, there is essentially a regulatory/administrative final 

decision. FAB CEs and HRs must ensure that a FD is issued prior 

to the expiration of a one-year deadline. FAB managers ensure 

that cases are assigned or re-assigned so as to prevent the 

expiration of a one-year deadline. 

a. No Objection or Hearing Request Filed. If the 

claimant did not object to the RD and did not request a 

hearing, and the RD has been pending at FAB for more than 

one year from the last date on which the claimant was 

allowed to file an objection or request a hearing, the RD 

becomes final on the one-year anniversary of that date. 

This would be 425 days [60 days to object + 365 days (one 

year)] after the RD date. 

b. Objection or Hearing Request Filed. A RD awaiting 

either a hearing or a review of the written record at the 

FAB will automatically become a FD on the one-year 

anniversary of the date the objection or request for a 

hearing was received in the FAB (as indicated by the date 

stamp). 

 

c. DEEOIC Director Reopened the Claim. A RD awaiting a 

FD following an order by the DEEOIC Director reopening the 

claim for a new FD shall be considered a FD on the one-year 

anniversary of the date of the Director’s reopening order. 

d. One-Year Event Occurs. If the one-year time limit has 

expired, the pending RD automatically becomes a FD, and the 

case shall be transferred to the FAB-NO for review. 

The FAB CE/HR ensures the case file is sent to the FAB-NO 

to the attention of the FAB Operations Specialist. A memo 

from the district FAB Manager, through the FAB Chief, dated 

and signed by the FAB Chief, to the Director must be 

included with the case file. The FAB Operations Specialist 

ensures that the case file is sent to the National 

Office(NO) to the attention of the Office of the Director. 

The memo requests that the regulatory/administrative final 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 13 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. One Year Requirement. (Continued) 

decision (based on the one-year rule) be vacated so a 

formal final decision can be issued. 

Once the case file is received in the NO, an assessment 

will be undertaken to determine whether it is necessary to 

vacate the regulatory/administrative final decision. If a 

Director’s Order is necessary, it will specify whether the 

case file needs to be returned to FAB for a FD or to the 

district office for a new RD based on the evidence of 

record. Once the file is received back in the 

FAB or DO, the DO or FAB proceeds as instructed by the 

Director’s Order. 

 

e. Jurisdiction. Upon expiration of the one-year time 

period described above, FAB has no jurisdiction to remand 

the case for further development or to take any action 

other than that described above. 

8. CE2 Designated to the FAB. FAB offices are geographically 

located as noted in paragraph 3 above. However, since DO 

adjudicatory functions are sometimes required while a case is at 

FAB for review, each DO assigns certain CEs to handle DO 

development and adjudication while the case is at FAB. 

This process eases the burden of file sharing and allows for 

case files to be maintained in one central location while RDs 

are pending review or FAB is addressing objections by conducting 

hearings or reviews of the written record and further DO-level 

development is required. 

 

a. Reporting and Roles. These CEs are called Co-Located 

Secondary CEs (CE2s) because the FAB CE (or HR) is 

considered the primary CE while the case is in FAB’s 

jurisdiction. This group of CE2s is referred to as the “CoLocated Unit.” The Co-Located Unit reports to either the DO 

or to the Policy Branch. 

b. Co-Located District Office Identifiers. Each colocated unit possesses a ‘DO2’ field identifying the 

location of the office. The ‘DO2’ field is populated when 

the ECMS “Co-Located Development” section (discussed below) 

is populated. The respective codes are as follows: 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 14 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. CE2 Designated to the FAB. (Continued) 

(1) SEF – Seattle Co-Located FAB. 

(2) CLF – Cleveland Co-Located FAB. 

(3) JAF – Jacksonville Co-Located FAB. 

(4) DEF – Denver Co-Located FAB. 

(5) NAF – National Office Co-Located FAB. 

c. Assign/Unassign CE2 Role. To enable or disable the 

CE2 role, the DD or designee e-mails the Unit Chief of the 

Policy, Regulations and Procedures Unit, with a copy to 

Energy Technical Support, requesting the role change. The 

e-mail contains the name of the CE and the reason for the 

request. The FAB manager to which the CE2 is co-located is 

also copied on the e-mail, so that FAB is aware of 

personnel changes that affect FAB workflow. 

d. Development Memorandum for Co-Located Unit. A DO CE 

who prepares a RD must be aware of any outstanding claims 

issues not addressed in the RD and requiring further 

development. If more development is needed concurrent with 

FAB’s review of the case, the CE prepares a memorandum on 

gold-colored paper addressed to the FAB manager from the 

Senior CE, Supervisor, or DD who is the final reviewer of 

the RD. The subject line should read: “Co-Located FAB 

Development for File No. [file number].” 

The body of the memorandum addresses any outstanding claims 

issues that require development by the Co-Located Unit 

while the case is being reviewed by the FAB. When the RD 

is reviewed and signed, the memorandum is also reviewed and 

signed. Once this is done, the original memorandum is 

spindled on top of the case file documents. 

e. Receipt of Case by the FAB. The FAB CE or HR reviews 

any co-located development memorandum and notes any further 

development needed. The FAB CE or HR may also become aware 

of issues during their review. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 15 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. CE2 Designated to the FAB. (Continued) 

If DO development is needed, the FAB CE, HR or Manager 

completes the additional CE/location area titled "CoLocated Development" on the case screen in ECMS. The 

fields that require completion are the “CE2” and “CE2 

Assign Dt” fields. The “CE2” field represents the 

Secondary CE designated in the co-located development 

memorandum, whose identifier should be selected from the 

drop-down menu. The FAB CE or HR tabs over to the CE 

assign date, which automatically populates with the current 

date and time. 

Only the FAB assigns the CE2 in ECMS. If DO development is 

required where no co-located memorandum exists in the case 

file, FAB writes a co-located memo to the CE2 outlining the 

issues that must be developed and sends the file to the colocated unit. The FAB CE or HR must not assign any 

development actions to the CE2 regarding matters before the 

FAB for review. The FAB CE or HR conducts any development 

necessary about matters before the FAB. 

f. CE2 and FAB Coordination. Both the FAB CE or HR and 

the CE2 can make entries into ECMS without having to 

transfer the case file in the system. The FAB CE or HR and 

the CE2 should coordinate their work to ensure that the 

file is where it is needed and the work can be completed. 

If both the FAB CE or HR and the CE2 need the actual file, 

the FAB CE or HR’s needs take precedence. 

 

g. Development by CE2. When the FAB completes its 

initial review, the CE2 may request the case to determine 

whether the evidence of file is sufficient to issue a RD on 

an outstanding claim element. The CE2 codes ECMS to 

reflect those actions for the duration of FAB review. 

Jurisdiction should remain in the appropriate FAB office 

and not be changed to the DO. 

 

(1) Issuing a RD. Should the record contain enough 

evidence to support a RD on any of the outstanding 

claim elements, the CE2 issues a RD. The Senior CE in 

the DO (or DD designee) reviews and signs the decision 

before issuance. Once the decision is reviewed and 

approved by the appropriate individual at the DO, the 

CE2 enters the RD code in ECMS that reflects the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 16 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. CE2 Designated to the FAB. (Continued) 

posture of the decision and returns the case to the 

FAB. It is particularly important to issue a RD in 

cases such as this if the claim element is in posture 

for acceptance. 

If additional elements of the claim require further 

development, the CE2 prepares a memorandum as outlined 

below. There is no need to rush to issue a RD denying 

a claim element if further claim elements are being 

deferred. In such a situation, the CE2 should 

wait until all claim elements are being denied before 

issuing a RD denial. An exception to this rule is if 

a hearing date has been requested or scheduled. In 

these cases, the CE2 issues a denial whenever possible 

prior to a hearing so that objections to all 

outstanding RDs can be entertained at one time, thus 

avoiding multiple hearings. 

(2) Further Development Required. If the DO 

development does not lead to issuance of an additional 

RD, the CE2 completes whatever development is possible 

and returns the case to FAB. The CE2 prepares a 

memorandum on gold-colored paper to the FAB manager 

explaining what development actions have been taken 

and what future actions are required. The memorandum 

is spindled on top of the case file materials. 

Throughout the time the case is in FAB, the CE2 

continues development and issues RDs on approved claim 

elements as the requisite evidence is received and 

evaluated. 

h. RD Returned by Postal Service. If the case file is at 

FAB for review and issuance of a FD, and the FAB CE or HR 

receives a RD which has been returned by the Postal 

Service, the CE or HR transfers the case file to a CE2 for 

development. The CE2 reviews the case to determine whether 

the claimant notified the DO of his or her address change 

or whether the DO sent the RD to an incorrect address and 

whether ECMS or the case file contained the correct 

address. If the RD contains the address of record, the CE2 

tries to determine the claimant’s current address. The CE2 

should request a forwarding address from the post office 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 17 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. CE2 Designated to the FAB. (Continued) 

closest to the claimant’s last known address. See Exhibit 

3.

(1) Correct Address Not Found. If the CE2 cannot 

obtain the claimant’s current address, the CE2 writes 

a memorandum to the file and transfers the case back 

to the FAB CE or HR for remand to the DO for 

administrative closure until the claimant can be 

located. The memorandum must list the actions taken 

by the CE2 to try to locate the claimant and his or 

her address. 

(2) Correct Address Found, Claimant Did Not Notify 

DO. In the event the claimant’s current address is 

obtained by the CE2, and the claimant did not advise 

the DO in writing of that change, the CE2 sends the 

claimant a copy of the original dated RD and the 

original cover letter, along with a request for 

written notice of address change (See Exhibit 4), file 

a memorandum of such actions in the case file, and 

transfer the case file back to the FAB CE or HR for 

review and issuance of the FD. The FD is not issued 

until FAB receives written confirmation from the 

claimant. 

(3) Correct Address Found, Claimant Notified DO. In 

the event the claimant’s current address is obtained 

by the CE2, and the wrong-address problem was not the 

claimant’s fault, the CE2 re-issues the RD to the 

claimant with a new issuance date and new cover 

letter. The CE2 spindles a memorandum explaining such 

actions on top of the case file. The CE2 shall then 

transfer the case file back to the FAB CE/HR from whom 

it was received. 

(4) Multiple Claimants. If a case has multiple 

claimants, all claimants’ RDs are returned by the 

Postal Service, and no current addresses can be 

obtained, the CE2 spindles a memorandum to that effect 

on the top of the case file and transfers the file 

back to the sending FAB CE or HR. The CE or HR then 

remands the case file to the DO for further 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 18 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. Secondary CEs (CE2) Designated to the FAB. (Continued) 

development or administrative closure until the 

address(es) can be obtained. 

If some claimants received their RDs and no current 

addresses can be located for other claimants, the CE2 

spindles a memorandum to that effect on the top of the 

case file and transfers the file back to the FAB 

office. The CE or HR then issues a Notice of Final 

Decision and Remand Order adjudicating the claims of 

those claimants who received the RD and remanding the 

claims of those claimants for whom no current address 

could be obtained. The remand will be for 

administrative closure until an address can be 

obtained. If the FAB issues a final decision awarding 

compensation benefits, the claims of those claimants 

with unknown addresses must not only be remanded but 

the claimants’ share of the compensation benefits must 

be held in abeyance. 

i. Transferring Case Back to DO. When the case file is 

ready for return to the DO, the person transferring the 

case file should click the “Unassign CE2” block in the colocated development portion of the ECMS case screen. This 

will deactivate the co-located development. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 19 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

SAMPLE COVER LETTER, PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE/PARTIAL DENIAL RD 

Dear Claimant Name: 

Enclosed is the Notice of Recommended Decision of the District 

Office concerning your claim for compensation under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA). The District Office recommends partial acceptance of 

your claim for benefits. Please note that this is only a 

RECOMMENDED Decision; this is not a Final Decision. We caution 

against making financial commitments based on the anticipated 

receipt of an award. The Recommended Decision has been 

forwarded to the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) for their 

review and issuance of the Final Decision. 

Please read the Notice of Recommended Decision and Claimant 

Rights carefully, as it recommends an acceptance of some 

benefits and denial of others. You have several choices. 

Consider your options carefully as your choice will affect your 

ability to raise objections, as well as the steps the FAB takes 

in issuing a final decision. 

The EEOICPA regulations provide you with a sixty day time period 

to raise written objections to any finding of fact or conclusion 

of law contained in the recommended decision. Until this sixty 

day time period expires, the FAB will not issue a final 

decision, unless you specifically advise the FAB that you wish 

to waive your right to object. 

Filing an objection and/or Requesting a Hearing. If you 

disagree with any aspect of the recommended decision, you may 

file a written objection and/or request a hearing. You should 

also advise the FAB whether you would like the FAB to consider 

your objections through a Review of the Written Record, an oral 

hearing, or a hearing by telephone. If you request a Review of 

the Written Record, the FAB will carefully consider your 

objections, as well as all the evidence of record including any 

new evidence you submit, before issuing a final decision. If 

you request an oral hearing, a hearing before a FAB hearing 

representative will be scheduled in your area. If you request a 

hearing by telephone, a FAB hearing representative will conduct 

a hearing by telephone, rather than in person. During either 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 1 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

form of hearing, you will be able to elaborate on your 

objections to the recommended decision. FAB will fully consider 

these objections prior to issuing a final decision. If you do 

not specifically request a hearing, a Review of the Written 

Record will be performed. 

Waiving your rights of objection and a hearing. If you are 

satisfied with the conclusions of the recommended decision and 

do not wish to raise an objection or request a hearing, you may 

consider waiving your rights of objection in writing. A waiver 

form has been enclosed for your convenience. You may advise FAB 

of your wish to waive your rights of objection by selecting 

Option 2. When you advise FAB in writing of your waiver of 

these rights, FAB will issue a final decision without waiting 

for the sixty-day time period to expire.

Waiving your rights only to the aspect of the recommendation 

approving benefits. If the recommended decision recommends an 

acceptance of some benefits and a denial of others, you may wish 

for FAB to expedite an issuance of a final decision awarding you 

benefits, while retaining your right to object and/or request a 

hearing as to the recommended denial of other benefits. You may 

advise FAB of your wishes in this situation in writing by 

selecting option 1 on the enclosed waiver form. If you choose 

to file objections or request a hearing, you must do so within 

the sixty-day time period. 

You should send any objection, any request for a hearing, or 

any waiver of these rights to FAB at the following address: 

U. S. Department of Labor 

Final Adjudication Branch 

Attn: District Manager 

Address 

City, State, Zip 

If you fail to file written objections to this decision within 

60 days of the date of this decision your right to challenge 

this decision before the FAB will be waived for all purposes. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 2 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

State Workers’ Compensation and Tort Actions: If you receive or 

have received any money (settlement, compensation benefits, 

etc.) from a state workers’ compensation program or related to a 

tort action (law suit) for the same condition(s) being 

recommended for acceptance in this decision, you must notify the 

Final Adjudication Branch immediately. This includes any monies 

received after the issuance of this recommended decision. 

Should you have any questions concerning the recommendation, you 

may call the Final Adjudication Branch, toll free, at: (xxx) 

xxx-xxxx. 

Sincerely, 

[Claims Examiner’s Name] 

Claims Examiner 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 3 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

SAMPLE WAIVER, PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE/PARTIAL DENIAL RD 

Dear [Claimant’s Name]: File Number: [File Number]

(Option 1—Bifurcated Waiver) 

I, ____________________ (claimant), being fully informed of my 

right to object to the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) any of 

the findings of fact and/or conclusions of law contained in the 

recommended decision issued on my claim for compensation under 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act and my right to request a hearing, do hereby waive those 

rights only as those rights pertain to the benefits awarded. I 

do, however, reserve my right to object to the findings of fact 

and/or conclusions of law contained in the recommended decision 

that deny other claimed benefits and my right to request a 

hearing on those issues. 

I understand that should I choose to file an objection with the 

FAB, I may either attach such objection to this form or submit a 

separate written objection to the address listed above within 60 

days of the date of issuance of the recommended decision. 

_______________________ 

Signature Date 

(Option 2—Full Waiver) 

I, ____________________ (claimant), being fully informed of my 

right to object with the FAB any of the findings of fact and/or 

conclusions of law contained in the recommended decision issued 

on my claim for compensation under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act and my right to 

request a hearing, do hereby waive those rights. 

_______________________ 

Signature Date 

(NOTE ON WAIVER: If you wish to file a waiver, please select 

and sign only one of the above options and return the 

signed/dated form to the address shown above. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009

Page 1 of 1 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

SAMPLE LETTER TO POSTMASTER 

Postmaster

Any Town, Any State 12345-9998

 

Dear Postmaster:

Agency Control Number (if applicable):_____________________

Date:____________________________________

Address Information Request

Please furnish this agency with the new address, if available for the 

following individual or verify whether or not the address given below is one 

at which mail for this individual is currently being delivered. If the 

following address is a post office box, please furnish the street address as 

recorded on the box-holder’s application form.

Name: ______________________________________________________________

Last Known Address __________________________________________

 __________________________________________

__________________________________________

I certify that the address information for this individual is required for 

the performance of this agency’s official duties. 

_____________________________________________________________

Signature of Agency Official

_____________________________________________________________

Title

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FOR POST OFFICE USE ONLY

___ Mail is delivered to address given New Address:

___ Not known at address given 

_________________________

___ Moved, left no forwarding address 

_________________________

___ No such address 

_________________________

___ Other: (Specify) _______________ 

Box Holder’s Street Address:

________________________________ 

________________________________ 

________________________________

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009

Page 1 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

USPS Return Address: 

Postmark/Date Stamp

As per 39 USC 404...”the USPS does not disclose mailing information 

except in the following limited circumstances; Authorized disclosures 

include limited circumstances such as the following: (a) to other 

government agencies or bodies: when relevant to a decision concerning 

employment, security clearances, security or suitability 

investigations, contracts, licenses, grants or benefits”...

 

The correspondence in question fits within the aforementioned 

parameters and our agency is requesting the aforementioned information 

as formatted in the USPS Administrative Support Manual Section 352.44. 

Please respond to our office via return mail or fax with the 

aforementioned postal patron’s new address/contact information. 

If you have any questions regarding this letter you can call me at my 

direct number xxx-xxx-xxxx.

Physical Address:

US Department of Labor – DEEOIC

P.O. Box XXXX

City, State Zip

Fax Number: xxx-xxx-xxxx Attn: Co-located unit

Sincerely,

Claims Examiner

Co-Located Unit - Office Location

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009

Page 2 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1700 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Review Process 

________________________________________________________________ 

SAMPLE CHANGE OF ADDRESS LETTER 

Date:___________________ 

 File #: Claim Number 

 

Employee:____________________ 

Claimant:_____________________ 

Name of Claimant 

Address (Line 1) 

Address (Line 2) 

Address (Line 3) 

Change of Address 

This will notify you of my change of address to the following: 

Name 

Address 

City/State/Zip 

Phone Number 

Other Information: 

_________________________________ _______________ 

Signature Date 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 4 

October 2009

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph and Subject Page Date Trans. No. 

Chapter 2-1800 FAB Decisions 

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . i 10/09 10-02 

1 Purpose and Scope. . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

2 Remand Orders. . . . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

3 Reviews of the Written Record. . 6 10/09 10-02 

4 Hearing Requests . . . . . . . . 7 10/09 10-02 

5 Conduct of the Hearing . . . . . 13 10/09 10-02 

6 Post-Hearing Actions . . . . . . 18 10/09 10-02 

7 FAB Final Decisions. . . . . . . 19 10/09 10-02 

8 Preparation of Final Decisions . 24 10/09 10-02 

9 Claimant Rights Following the 

 Issuance of FAB Final Decisions 28 10/09 10-02 

10 Alternative Filing, Part E . . . 34 10/09 10-02 

Exhibits 

1 Sample Remand Order and Cover 

 Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

2 Certificate of Service . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

3 Sample Acknowledgment Letter, 

 Review of Written Record . . . 10/09 10-02 

4 Sample Acknowledgment Letter, 

 Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

5 Sample Hearing Notice to Claimant 

 Who Filed an Objection. . . . . 10/09 10-02 

6 Sample Hearing Notice to 

 Claimant Who Did Not File 

 an Objection . . . . . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

7 Waiver of Rights to 

 Confidentiality. . . . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

8 Waiver of Rights to 

 Confidentiality (Media). . . . 10/09 10-02 

9 Sample Hearing Script . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

10 Sample Complete Final Decision . 10/09 10-02 

11 Sample Cover Letter, 

 Alternative Filing . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 i 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

1. Purpose and Scope. This chapter describes how the Final 

Adjudication Branch (FAB) reviews recommended decisions (RDs) 

issued by district offices (DOs) and issues final decisions 

(FDs) on claims filed pursuant to the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). It 

also describes how the FAB issues remand orders, conducts 

reviews of the written record, schedules and conducts hearings, 

and reviews requests for reconsideration of FAB final decisions. 

2. Remand Orders. 20 C.F.R. § 30.317 gives FAB the authority 

to return cases to the DO without issuing a FD. A remand order 

is a written directive issued in lieu of a FD. 

A remand order may instruct the DO to administratively close the 

case, perform further development, address an error or other 

deficiency contained in a RD, address new evidence or a new 

claim received prior to the issuance of the FD, or address a 

change in the law, regulations, policies or procedures. 

A remand order can be warranted at any point during a review of 

the written record, before or after a hearing, or during the 

review of a RD. The FAB develops evidence rather than issues a 

remand order where such development will produce a timely FD. 

If substantial or prolonged development is necessary, the FAB 

will issue a remand order and return the file to the DO. 

 

a. Automatic Remands. 

(1) Claimant Dies. FAB remands a case if the 

claimant dies after the issuance of the RD but prior 

to issuance of the FD. Where there are multiple 

claimants and one or more, but not all, claimants die 

prior to the issuance of the FD, FAB will issue a 

Notice of Final Decision and Remand Order, which 

adjudicates the claims of the surviving claimants, 

adjusts compensation if applicable, and remands the 

claim of the deceased claimant(s) for administrative 

closure. 

(2) Claimant Withdraws Claim. FAB remands a case for 

administrative closure if a claimant withdraws his or 

her claim prior the issuance of the FD. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 1 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

2. Remand Orders. (Continued) 

(3) Claimant Cannot be Located. When a RD is returned 

by the Postal Service and a current address for the 

claimant cannot be obtained by the Co-Located Unit 

within a reasonable period of time, FAB remands the case 

for administrative closure until a correct address can 

be obtained. 

(4) SWC/Tort/Fraud Statements Not Obtained. Where 

signed statements regarding tort lawsuits, state 

workers’ compensation (SWC) claims and whether fraud 

was committed in connection with an application for or 

receipt of any federal or state workers’ compensation 

are required and not all claimants have submitted such 

statements, FAB remands the case if FAB cannot obtain 

such statements prior to the due date of the FD. 

In this situation, the DO should attempt to obtain the 

claimants’ signed statements and issue a new RD. 

When a consequential injury is to be accepted, the CE 

must get a new signed SWC/Tort/Fraud affidavit from 

the claimant for that consequential injury. 

b. Discretionary Remands. FAB is to use reasonable 

discretion and common sense when assessing a case for 

remand. If the RD provides sound reasoning, rationale and 

discussion and does not include material factual errors or 

erroneous application of law, the FAB must respect the DO’s 

adjudicatory function. If FAB can make a reasonable 

determination that the outcome of the case would not be 

materially affected regardless of further development, FAB 

should exercise its discretion and not issue a remand 

order. 

(1) Change in Law, Regulations or Policies. If FAB 

determines that a conclusion of law or the recommended 

determination in the RD is erroneous in light of a 

recent change in the law, regulations, or policy, FAB 

may remand the case. If this occurs, the remand order 

identifies the changed law, new Special Exposure 

Cohort (SEC) class, Program Evaluation Reports (PERs), 

or other regulatory or policy changes and the effect 

on the adjudication of the case. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 2 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

2. Remand Orders. (Continued) 

 

(2) Erroneous Application of Law, Regulations, 

Policies or Procedures. If FAB determines that the 

recommended determination in the RD resulted from a 

misapplication of the law, regulations, policies or 

procedures, FAB may remand the case. The remand order 

identifies the misapplication of law, regulations, 

policies or procedures and describes how it effects 

the adjudication of the case. To expedite a favorable 

decision, the FAB CE/HR can reverse the decision 

without issuing a remand order. 

(3) Receipt of New Medical Evidence or a New Claim. 

If new medical evidence or a new claim is received 

while the case is at FAB, FAB may remand or reverse to 

accept the claim, as applicable. 

For example, if the RD denies a claim for CBD on the 

basis of a lack of medical evidence and the claimant 

later submits medical evidence establishing CBD, the 

FAB may remand the claim or reverse the RD if all 

elements of adjudicatory process are complete. 

If a new claim is received, the case will be remanded 

for development of the new claim if it will affect the 

outcome of the issue before the FAB. If filing of a 

new claim will not affect the issue before the FAB, 

the FAB can issue a FD and return the new claim to the 

DO for further development. If the FAB is not 

immediately ready to issue the FD, than the Co-Located 

Unit should create the new claim and begin development 

while the case is at FAB. 

(4) Receipt of Other New Evidence. If FAB receives 

new evidence that was not a part of the file when the 

RD was issued and that is material to the recommended 

determination, (such as employment evidence, 

survivorship evidence, or evidence of a SWC/tort 

suit), FAB may remand the case or reverse the RD if it 

is advantageous to the claimant. The remand order 

will describe the new evidence and its possible effect 

on the adjudication of the case. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 3 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

2. Remand Orders. (Continued) 

(5) Evidence Already in File. If the RD fails to 

properly address material evidence in the file and the 

failure could have an effect on the adjudication of 

the claim, FAB may remand the case. The remand order 

will describe the evidence and its possible effect on 

the adjudication of the case. If advantageous to the 

claimant, and all adjudicatory issues are complete, 

FAB may reverse the RD and accept the claim. 

For example, if evidence in the file sufficiently 

supports a diagnosis of a claimed cancer but the 

cancer was not included in the dose reconstruction, 

FAB may remand the case for a re-work of the dose 

reconstruction if a DEEOIC Health Physicist determines 

that a re-work is required. 

(6) Miscalculation of Tort Offset or SWC 

Coordination. If FAB determines that the RD contains 

a finding of fact or conclusion of law that is based 

on a material miscalculation of the offset arising 

from a tort lawsuit or SWC coordination, FAB may 

remand the case. 

(a) If a case is remanded for this reason, FAB 

includes its calculation worksheet in the file 

and, if necessary, a supplemental explanation of 

what FAB considers the evidentiary basis for its 

calculation. 

(b) If FAB determines that the miscalculation was 

relatively minor and was not favorable to the 

claimant, FAB may exercise its discretion and 

issue a FD which corrects the calculation in the 

claimant’s favor, without a remand. 

(7) Procedural Problems. If FAB determines that the 

RD was not issued in a manner consistent with EEOICPA 

procedures, FAB may remand the case. 

For example, if the DO sends a development letter and 

explicitly allows the claimant 30 days to provide 

evidence, but upon review of the letter it did not 

identify the specific evidence that was needed or a RD 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 4 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

2. Remand Orders. (Continued) 

was issued before the 30 day period expired, FAB may 

determine that proper procedures were not followed and 

may remand the case. 

 

c. Format of Remand Order. A remand order follows a 

narrative format and is directed to the individual 

claimant(s). It includes a brief discussion of the case’s 

adjudicatory history, the basis for the remand, any 

explanation and supplemental documentation required and an 

explanation of the actions to be undertaken by the DO. A 

sample remand order is shown in Exhibit 1. 

d. Notification and Transfer of File. When a remand 

order is issued, FAB inserts into the case file a copy of 

the remand order, certificate of service, and any 

supporting calculations or supplementary documentation. 

FAB sends a copy of the remand order, certificate of 

service, and cover letter to the claimant and the 

authorized representative, if any. 

(1) The cover letter explains the remand order and the 

DO’s responsibility for preparing a new recommended 

decision after further development. See Exhibit 1. 

(2) A certificate of service, which certifies the 

remand order was mailed on a certain date, is also 

prepared for each individual recipient, attesting to 

the date the remand order is sent. See Exhibit 2. 

(3) Upon issuance of a remand order, FAB transfers the 

case file to the DO that issued the RD. 

e. Challenging a Remand Order. No procedure allows a 

claimant to directly challenge a remand order, but each DD 

has the authority to formally challenge a FAB remand order 

with the EEOICP Director if sufficient cause exists to do 

so. 

3. Reviews of the Written Record. Where the claimant has 

submitted a timely written objection to the RD but has not 

requested a hearing, FAB conducts a review of the written 

record. If the claimant objects to one portion of the RD and 

agrees with the other portion, the FAB may issue a FD on the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 5 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

3. Reviews of the Written Record. (Continued) 

accepted portion and issue a separate “Final Decision Following 

a Review of the Written Record” on the objected portion. RDs 

addressing multiple claimants generally should be issued under 

one FD. 

A review of the written record (RWR) is an analysis of the 

documentation contained in the case file to determine if the 

conclusions reached in the RD are accurate in light of the 

objections filed and the requirements of the EEOICPA. 

a. Acknowledgement. The FAB acknowledges receipt of the 

objection in writing. The letter to the claimant indicates 

that the claimant has an additional 20 calendar days from 

the date of the acknowledgement letter to submit new 

evidence in support of the objection. 

For claims involving multiple claimants, a single objection 

from any one claimant is sufficient to warrant a review of 

the entire written record. Upon receipt of an objection in 

a case with multiple claimants, individual acknowledgments 

are sent to each claimant explaining the course of action 

to be undertaken. Because the submission of an objection 

is considered private, the acknowledgment letter to the 

claimant(s) that did not submit the objection should 

indicate that an objection was received but must not 

indicate the claimant who submitted the objection. A sample 

acknowledgement letter is shown in Exhibit 3. The appeal 

screen will be updated in ECMS only for the claimant(s) 

requesting the RWR. 

b. Conduct of Review of the Written Record. Guidelines 

for conducting a review of the written record are set out 

in 20 C.F.R. § 30.313. The FAB representative considers 

the written record forwarded by the DO and any additional 

evidence and/or argument submitted by the claimant. 

After the RWR, FAB issues a FD, remands all or part of the 

case to the DO, or reverses all or a portion of the RD if 

advantageous to the claimant. A FD following a RWR 

contains a summation and examination of the claimant’s 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 6 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

3. Reviews of the Written Record. (Continued) 

objections. The HR ensures that any decision is based on 

an objective analysis of the evidence, well-reasoned 

judgment and sound exercise of discretion. 

4. Hearing Requests. An oral hearing permits the claimant, 

his or her authorized representative, and any witnesses to voice 

objections in person to a HR. Section 30.314 of the regulations 

describes how hearings are to be conducted. 

 

a. Initial Handling of Hearing Requests. When a FAB 

office receives a timely request for an oral hearing and 

the HR determines that an error or other deficiency in the 

recommended decision or in the initial case adjudication 

precludes the need for a hearing, and the FAB supervisor 

agrees, the HR will notify the claimant that the hearing 

will not be scheduled and a remand order will be prepared. 

The claimant can still request that the hearing be 

scheduled. However, if the HR finds no basis for remand, 

the request, Hearing Review Checklist, and case file are 

immediately forwarded to the FAB-NO, noting any special 

requests or needs of the claimant. The hearing scheduler 

tracks incoming requests for oral hearings and assigns the 

hearing to an HR in one of the four FAB DOs or an HR at the 

NO. 

b. Acknowledgement. Following the assignment of a 

hearing request to a FAB hearing scheduler, the hearing 

scheduler sends an acknowledgement letter to the claimant 

and any authorized representative confirming receipt of the 

hearing request. See Exhibit 4 for a sample acknowledgment 

letter. Each claimant involved with the case is to be 

sent an acknowledgment. The acknowledgement must be sent 

30 days prior to the date of the hearing and includes the 

following notification: 

(1) The hearing will be conducted within 200 miles 

roundtrip of the claimant’s residence, absent 

compelling reasons to the contrary. 

(2) All sworn testimony offered during the hearing 

will be transcribed for inclusion into the case file. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 7 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Hearing Requests. (Continued) 

(3) The FAB at its discretion can schedule a 

telephone hearing. See paragraph d(2) below.

(4) If the claim involves multiple claimants, each is 

allowed to participate in the hearing. 

c. Hearing Assignments. The hearing scheduler may assign 

a hearing to either a FAB-DO or NO HR. The hearing 

scheduler sends a hearing acknowledgment letter, schedules 

a date and time for the hearing, reserves the physical 

space for the proceedings, and arranges for a court 

reporter to be present. The hearing scheduler denotes the 

hearing assignment in ECMS and transmits the entire case 

file to the assigned HR. The hearing scheduler also issues 

the notice of hearing scheduling letter under the name of 

the HR assigned to the case. 

d. Scheduling. Each claimant is provided written notice 

of the hearing at least 30 days prior to the scheduled 

date; advised that one week’s notice must be provided to 

the FAB should he or she desire a person(s) other than 

himself or herself and his or her authorized representative 

to attend the hearing; and advised that no independent 

video or audio recording of the hearing is allowed. See 

Exhibits 5 and 6 for Sample Hearing Notice letters. 

(1) Travel to Hearing. While the FAB will try to set 

the hearing within commuting distance of the claimant, 

the claimant may be required to travel up to 200 miles 

roundtrip to attend the hearing. There is no payment 

to the claimant for the expense of this travel. 

However, if an unusual circumstance causes the FAB to 

schedule a hearing that requires the claimant to 

travel more than 200 miles roundtrip, OWCP will 

reimburse him or her by for reasonable and necessary 

travel expenses as outlined in 20 C.F.R 30.314(2). 

(2) Telephonic Hearings. A hearing may be conducted 

by telephone at the FAB’s discretion or by claimant 

request. Only the hearing scheduler can schedule such 

a hearing, which will include all the aspects of an 

in-person hearing. 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 8 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Hearing Requests. (Continued) 

(3) Scheduling Changes. The FAB will entertain any 

reasonable request for scheduling the time and place 

of a hearing, but such requests should be made when 

the hearing is requested. The hearing scheduler will 

make every effort to accommodate the scheduling 

request of the claimant. An in-person hearing may be 

changed, based upon a claimant or authorized 

representative request, to a telephonic hearing. This 

change must be coordinated through the hearing 

scheduler. 

In most instances, once the hearing has been scheduled 

and written notice has been mailed, it cannot be 

postponed at the claimant’s request for any reason 

except as indicated in paragraph 4 below. However, the 

hearing scheduler may accommodate minor scheduling 

changes requested by a claimant. 

HRs may not make changes to the scheduled hearing time 

or place without supervisory approval. The change 

request must be made to the HR’s supervisor and the 

supervisor will contact the hearing scheduling unit. 

(4) Postponing a Hearing. The FAB may grant a 

postponement of a hearing when the claimant or his or 

her authorized representative has a medical reason 

that prevents attendance or when the death of the 

claimant’s parent, spouse or child prevents 

attendance. The FAB will make every effort to 

accommodate timely requests to postpone a hearing. 

The claimant or authorized representative should 

provide at least 24 hours notice and a reasonable 

explanation supporting his or her inability to attend 

the scheduled hearing. In such cases, a new hearing 

will be set for the next hearing trip. Supervisory 

approval is needed to postpone a hearing. 

(5) Failure to Attend. If a claimant does not attend 

the hearing at the designated time and place, and 

makes no effort to contact the HR to request a 

rescheduling based on one of the reasons outlined in 

paragraph d(4) above, the claimant will not be allowed 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 9 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Hearing Requests. (Continued) 

to reschedule his or her hearing. In such instances, 

the claimant will be considered to have withdrawn the 

hearing request, and a Review of the Written Record 

(RWR) will be undertaken. If new evidence or argument 

accompanied the objection, it will be reviewed in the 

RWR. 

(6) Cancellation of Hearing. The FAB acknowledges 

the cancellation in writing and gives the claimant 10 

days from the date of the acknowledgement to submit 

additional evidence. The FAB representative then 

conducts a review of the written record. 

e. Review of Case File. Prior to the hearing, the HR 

reviews the evidence of record, as well as any additional 

evidence or materials submitted by the claimant. If the 

additional evidence received establishes compensability or 

the need for further development and the FAB supervisor 

agrees, the HR will notify the claimant and/or authorized 

representative that the claim will be remanded and the 

hearing will be canceled. If the evidence is sufficient to 

warrant reversal in favor of the claimant, FAB may issue a 

reversal. If the claimant and/or authorized representative 

states he/she wants to proceed with the hearing, the 

hearing will be conducted as scheduled. 

Moreover, the HR conducts whatever additional investigation 

is deemed necessary to prepare for the proceedings. The HR 

contacts the claimant by telephone prior to the hearing to 

confirm they are planning to attend the hearing at the 

arranged date, time and location. 

The HR reviews the adjudicatory history of the case file as 

a whole to determine the proper handling of additional 

evidence and/or objections that might be received at the 

hearing. This is particularly important when more than one 

RD is pending. 

f. Multiple RDs. Since more than one RD denying benefits 

can be issued prior to a hearing and additional objections 

and hearing requests may result, measures are needed to 

streamline the hearing process. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 10 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Hearing Requests. (Continued) 

If more than one RD is pending, the HR contacts each 

objecting claimant and advises that all objections, not 

just those pertaining to the RD that is the subject of the 

hearing request, may be discussed during the hearing. The 

claimant(s) will be encouraged to bring relevant evidence, 

even if it concerns a pending RD for which a timely 

objection was not filed. All telephonic contact prior to 

the hearing is documented in ECMS. 

(1) Hearing Requests on Multiple Pending RDs. When 

additional timely hearing requests are submitted based 

on other recommended denials prior to the hearing 

date, the HR contacts the requesting party to advise 

that all objections will be considered at the 

previously scheduled hearing so that one hearing may 

serve to accept evidence and testimony on several 

different RDs. This process is designed to avoid 

multiple hearings where possible. 

The HR notes the conversation with the claimant in 

ECMS, confirming that the claimant was advised that 

all outstanding objections will be considered at the 

hearing. The HR updates the appeal screen in ECMS for 

each RD and each claimant requesting the hearing. 

Separate hearing request acknowledgments and hearing 

notices are not required. The HR must be prepared to 

entertain objections about all RDs issued up to the 

date of the hearing and will take testimony and 

evidence on all outstanding objections. Each RD in 

question is considered in a single FAB decision once 

the FAB hearing process is concluded. 

(2) Hearing Request on One RD, Request for Review of 

the Written Record (RWR) on Another. If a claimant 

has requested a hearing on one outstanding RD and an 

RWR on the other, the HR allows the claimant to 

present evidence about the objections at the hearing, 

as long as FAB has not issued a FD on the RWR request. 

[If FAB has issued a FD on the request for RWR, see 

paragraph (4) below.] 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 11 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Hearing Requests. (Continued) 

(a) The objection and evidence are considered at 

the hearing and treated with all other objections 

and evidence in the post-hearing FAB decision. 

No review of the written record decision is 

issued. Coding in ECMS should be changed to 

reflect a Request for a Hearing, rather than a 

Request for a Review of the Written Record. 

(b) In cases with multiple claimants when one 

claimant requests a review of the written record 

and another requests a hearing, no decision is 

issued to either claimant until the hearing 

process is complete. FAB can contact the 

claimant who requested an RWR and ask if he or 

she would like to address objections to the RD 

for which an RWR was requested at the time of the 

hearing on the other RD. If he or she agrees, 

the RWR is changed to a hearing in ECMS. If he 

or she declines, his or her objections will be 

reviewed as part of the hearing decision. Coding 

in ECMS should be changed to reflect a Request 

for a Hearing rather than a Request for a Review 

of the Written Record and a note should be added 

to ECMS explaining this action. All claimants, 

whether they request a hearing or not, are served 

with notice of the hearing and are afforded the 

opportunity to be present at the hearing and 

participate. The RWR objections and the 

objections discussed at the hearing will be 

discussed in one FD. 

(3) Hearing Request on One RD, No Objection Filed on 

Another. While awaiting a hearing on one RD, a FD may 

be issued on another RD for which no objection has 

been filed following the expiration of the 60 day 

period. At the hearing, the HR will take testimony 

and evidence on any outstanding RD that has been 

issued up to the hearing date. If testimony or 

evidence is presented about a RD for which the 60 day 

post-decision objection period has expired and a FD 

has not been issued, all testimony and evidence will 

be entered into the record. The timeliness of such 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 12 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

4. Hearing Requests. (Continued) 

objections will be addressed when the post-hearing FAB 

decision is issued. 

(4) Hearing Request on One RD, FD Issued on Another. 

A claimant may request a hearing on one RD and a 

reconsideration of a previously issued FD within 30 

days of its issuance. 

 

(a) If a FD has been issued and a hearing is 

held regarding an outstanding RD within the 30 

day post-decision reconsideration period, the HR 

reviews any new evidence related to the 

previously issued FD as a request for 

reconsideration. Reconsideration requests cannot 

be assigned to a FAB representative who has had 

prior involvement with the claim. If the FD was 

issued by the HR present at the hearing, the 

reconsideration request should be assigned to 

another FAB representative. A decision on the 

reconsideration should be issued separately from 

the hearing decision. 

(b) If the claimant presents evidence or argument 

pertaining to a FD at the hearing and the hearing 

date is outside of the 30 day post-decision 

reconsideration period, the HR reviews the 

evidence as a possible reopening. 

5. Conduct of the Hearing. The hearing is an informal 

proceeding and the HR is not bound by common law or statutory 

rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure. 

Generally, the hearing is scheduled to last one hour, but the HR 

should not specifically limit the hearing to one hour and should 

never tell a claimant that he or she is limited to one hour. 

Also, the HR must bring a tape recorder to the hearing in case a 

court reporter is not present. The HR must ensure that the 

court reporter is using required back-up recorders. 

a. Convening. At the scheduled time and place, the HR 

will meet with the court reporter, the claimant, and any 

authorized representative. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 13 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Conduct of the Hearing. (Continued) 

(1) If any other individual(s) is in attendance, the 

HR will request the identity of this individual(s) and 

have the claimant(s) sign a “Waiver of Right to 

Confidentiality” (See Exhibit 7) before convening the 

hearing. The claimant(s) sign a separate waiver (see 

Exhibit 8) if he or she requests that a member of the 

media be present. 

(2) If there are multiple claimants present, each is 

required to sign a waiver of confidentiality. 

(3) At the start of the hearing, the HR indicates to 

the court reporter that he or she wishes to open the 

record of the hearing. He or she will note the date 

and time, identify all persons present by name, and 

enter a brief narrative into the record describing the 

events leading to the hearing, including the specific 

objection(s) raised by the claimant. If no specific 

objections have been raised, the HR should indicate 

this. 

 

For hearings addressing NIOSH Dose Reconstruction issues, 

the HR strictly follows the hearing script shown as Exhibit 

9. The HR advises participants that he or she can discuss 

issues of a factual nature about the information provided 

to NIOSH and the application of methodology (see example 

below), but is not permitted to consider in the final 

decision objections to the methodology employed by NIOSH in 

preparing the dose reconstruction report. 

APPLICATION OF METHODOLOGY 

A claimant may present argument to the FAB that NIOSH made 

an error in the application of methodology such as applying 

the radiation dose estimate methods to his or her 

individual circumstances. Other examples of objections 

include: did NIOSH identify all sources of exposure to the 

worker; were the air samples chosen to represent the air 

breathed by the worker appropriate; is the group of coworkers appropriate for determining exposure to the worker; 

and were proper assumptions made about the particular 

physical or chemical form of radioactive material that was 

used in the facility where the employee worked and its 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 14 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Conduct of the Hearing. (Continued) 

solubility class. Another application issue might involve 

the use of “worst case” approach (which is a NIOSH method). 

The application aspect of this issue might be whether the 

“worst case” selected was the worst case (e.g., there were 

20 more people working there that were not monitored and 

the worst case was based only on monitored individuals). 

 

Example of Application of Methodology. The objection 

alleges that NIOSH did not properly consider the 

“proximity to the source.” The NIOSH exposure matrix 

considers that the worker was one foot away from 

uranium billets/rods for six hours and one meter away 

for four hours. NIOSH considers this to adequately 

account for times when the worker would touch the 

uranium rods/billets, since there would also be times 

when the worker was at a much greater distance. This 

exposure matrix is drawn as the example of highest 

possible exposure, as no individual exposure records 

are available. The objection indicates that the 

worker handled the uranium metal more often than NIOSH 

allowed in the exposure matrix. This is a challenge 

to the application of the dose reconstruction 

methodology and can be addressed as part of the 

hearing process. 

METHODOLOGY 

20 CFR 30.318(b) provides that the "methodology" NIOSH uses 

in making radiation dose estimates is binding on the FAB. 

The "methodology" NIOSH uses is the dose reconstruction, 

which is addressed in the statute and 42 CFR Part 82. 

“Methodology" is dictated by sections 7384n(c) and (d) of 

the statute. For example, those methods must be based on 

the radiation dose received by the employee (or a group of 

employees performing similar work) and the upper 99 percent 

confidence interval of the probability of causation in the 

radioepidemiological tables published under the Orphan Drug 

Act. The Act also requires NIOSH to consider the type of 

cancer, past health-related activities (such as smoking), 

and information on the risk of developing a radiationrelated cancer from workplace exposure. 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 15 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Conduct of the Hearing. (Continued) 

The "methods" of dose reconstruction are set out in 42 CFR 

Part 82 and include: analyzing specific characteristics of 

the monitoring procedures in a given work setting; 

identifying events or processes that were unmonitored; 

identifying the types and quantities of radioactive 

materials involved; evaluating production processes and 

safety procedures; applying certain assumptions that err 

reasonably on the side of overestimating exposures while 

achieving efficiency; and using current models for 

calculating internal dose published by the International 

Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The NIOSH 

“efficiency” process of using overestimates and 

underestimates in dose reconstruction is another example of 

a methodology. It is these "methods" that cannot be 

addressed by FAB. Any questions related to the content of 

NIOSH-IREP software are related to methodology, whereas 

questions related to the Department of Labor’s probability 

of causation calculation (which relies on NIOSH-IREP 

software) can be considered. 

Example of Objections to Methodology. The radiation 

dose to the claimant’s gall bladder was calculated 

using the highest recorded doses from other co-workers 

at the facility as the basis for the claimant’s dose 

estimate. This was noted in the text of the dose 

reconstruction report as being “the highest reasonably 

possible radiation dose.” No uncertainty values were 

assigned to the claimant’s estimate because it was 

considered that the claimant’s “dose was no higher 

than this estimate.” 

b. Testimony and Evidence. The HR will administer an oath 

to each person giving testimony. The HR should make clear 

at the outset that he or she cannot receive testimony from 

participants who are not under oath. If a witness arrives 

late, he/she must be sworn in before testifying. An 

attorney must not be sworn in since he or she simply 

presents arguments, objections or evidence but not 

testimony. 

(1) A court reporter shall record oral testimony and 

place it into the record. A court reporter may use 

only audio (not video) equipment. Moreover, neither 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 16 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Conduct of the Hearing. (Continued) 

the claimant(s), any authorized representative or 

anyone else present at the hearing may bring audio or 

video equipment to obtain an independent record of the 

hearing. 

(2) Any evidence or testimony a claimant wishes to 

enter into the record is entered, even if it pertains 

to a RD that was previously issued and the 60-day 

post-decision timeframe to object has expired. The HR 

will accept all testimony and evidence presented at 

the hearing. 

(3) During the claimant’s testimony, the HR should 

note any additional questions or areas for exploration 

and make appropriate inquiries. The claimant can 

raise additional objections at this time. The HR 

should ask questions or request the claimant to 

elaborate so the objections are clearly understood. 

(4) Each exhibit is marked separately and identified 

on the record by name and number with a brief 

description of its content. The HR will state on the 

record that the exhibit is being entered into the 

evidence of record. 

(5) During the testimony the HR states whether there 

is a need to interrupt testimony and go off the 

record. When it is time to return on the record, the 

HR indicates this and, once back on record, provides a 

brief description of why it was necessary to go off 

the record. Time and issues discussed off the record 

should be kept to a minimum. 

(6) The HR spells unfamiliar words or names to help 

the court reporter maintain an accurate record of the 

hearing. 

c. Conclusion. When all testimony has been given and all 

the exhibits marked and clarifications made, the HR 

explains that the record will remain open 30 days after the 

date of the hearing to permit the submission of additional 

written evidence or argument on the issue(s) in question. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 17 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

5. Conduct of the Hearing. (Continued) 

The HR also advises that the claimant will receive a copy 

of the transcript and will have 20 days from the date of 

mailing to request changes in writing to the record. 

The HR then closes the proceedings by noting the time and 

date. 

6. Post-Hearing Actions. After the hearing, the HR obtains a 

copy of the transcript from the reporting service. FAB sends 

the claimant a copy of the hearing transcript within seven 

calendar days of the transcripts receipt in the FAB. 

A cover letter accompanies the transcript, reminding the 

claimant that he or she has 20 days from the date of the letter 

to comment on the accuracy of the transcript in writing. The 

claimant is also advised that the record will remain open 30 

days from the hearing date for the submission of additional 

evidence. 

a. Collecting Comments and Additional Evidence. The HR 

keeps the hearing record open for 30 calendar days after 

the hearing. At his or her discretion, the HR may choose 

to grant the claimant an extension for the submission of 

new evidence. However, the HR may only grant one extension 

not to exceed another 30 calendar days. 

(1) If the claimant submits additional evidence 

within 30 days after the date of the hearing, or 

comments on the transcript, the HR will enter such 

evidence into the record and weigh it when issuing the 

decision. 

(2) If the claimant does not submit additional 

evidence within 30 days after the date of the hearing, 

and does not comment on the transcript, the HR reaches 

a decision based on examination of the evidence of 

record. However, the HR must consider all evidence 

submitted, even if it arrives after the 30 day period, 

prior to issuing a FD. 

b. Final Decision. After examining the documents 

associated with the hearing, the HR prepares a FD if a 

determination can be made without further development. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 18 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

6. Post-Hearing Actions. (Continued) 

c. Disposition of Case File. Once FAB issues a decision 

on the RD considered at the hearing, the case file is 

returned to the DO. However, if FAB reviewed multiple RDs 

and additional FAB review is required after a hearing 

decision has been issued on only one of the RDs, the case 

file remains at FAB until such pending action is resolved. 

(1) Reconsiderations. If FAB is reviewing a FD for 

reconsideration and has held a hearing on another RD, 

the case file remains at FAB until all review is 

completed. In such instances, if a remand order is 

issued based upon any of the RDs considered at the 

hearing but the reconsideration is outstanding, or if 

the HR grants the reconsideration and remands that 

issue but a FD following a hearing is outstanding, the 

Secondary CE (CE2) designated to work FAB issues 

receives the remand order and addresses all issues 

contained therein. 

If reconsideration is not granted, once the request 

for reconsideration is reviewed and a decision issued, 

the case file is returned to the DO as long as no 

other outstanding issues remain. 

(2) Remand Orders. As noted above, if the case file 

remains at FAB for additional action, the CE2 

addresses the remand order. 

If no additional FAB action is required, the case file 

is immediately returned to the DO, which addresses the 

remand order and issues a new RD. 

d. Cases Returned to DO. Where there are no outstanding 

issues as outlined above, the case file is returned to the 

DO that issued the contested RD. 

7. FAB Final Decisions. The FAB reviews the case record and 

all evidence of file and makes findings of facts and conclusions 

of law. The FAB CE issues an independent decision and ensures 

that the claim has been thoroughly developed and a correct 

conclusion has been reached. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 19 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. FAB Final Decisions. (Continued) 

There are several types of FAB FDs: 

a. Acceptances. When FAB receives a RD accepting 

benefits, the FAB makes findings of fact and conclusions of 

law and issues the FD to accept, provided no technical or 

procedural errors exist. 

(1) If the RD accepts the claim in full and 

independent review by FAB concludes the acceptance is 

correct, FAB issues the FD awarding benefits in full. 

In such instances FAB issues the FD within 30 days of 

receipt of the waiver or upon expiration of the 60 day 

post-RD objection period, whichever comes first. If a 

claimant submits a waiver on day 59, this does not 

grant an additional 30 days to issue a FD. To be 

issued timely, the FD must be issued upon expiration 

of the 60 day objection period. 

(2) If the DO has issued a RD accepting one or more 

claim element(s) while denying and/or deferring other 

elements, the FAB issues the FD as soon as possible to 

expedite the claimant’s receipt of benefits. FAB does 

not wait to issue the FD until the elements under 

development at the DO are adjudicated, as those 

elements will usually require their own RDs and FDs 

once development is completed. 

(a) A bifurcated waiver (see EEOICPA PM 2-1700, 

Exhibit 2) is issued with RDs that are partial 

acceptances/partial denials. 

If the claimant mistakenly selects both options, 

or provides an ambiguous response, a FAB 

representative contacts the claimant and requests 

clarification in writing. 

If the claimant advises in writing that he or she 

did not wish to waive his or her right to object, 

the waiver code is removed from ECMS by a FAB 

manager and a note put into ECMS explaining why 

it was deleted. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 20 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. FAB Final Decisions. (Continued) 

(b) Where there are multiple claimants, FAB must 

wait until all waivers are received before 

issuing the FD. However, as stated above, receipt 

of a waiver on day 59 for example, does not grant 

an additional 30 days to issue a FD. To be 

issued timely, it must be issued within the 75 

day period. 

(c) If no waiver is submitted, FAB issues the FD 

once the 60-day post-RD objection period expires. 

(d) If a claimant files a timely written 

objection, FAB cannot issue a FD until the 

objection is duly considered, either through the 

hearing process or a review of the written 

record. Contested decisions are addressed below. 

One exception to the situation described above is 

where a claimant waives the right to object to 

the accepted portion of the claim but does object 

to the denied portion. In that instance, FAB 

issues the FD accepting the approved portion and 

considers the objection as outlined below. 

b. Denials. When FAB receives a RD denying the claim in 

full or in part, FAB reviews the RD and independently 

reviews the case to ensure that it has been adjudicated 

consistent with the law, regulations, policies and 

procedures. If there is evidence in the case that warrants 

a reversal, the FAB CE/HR reverses the decision with 

approval from the FAB chief and issues benefits to the 

claimant without delay. If the claimant submits additional 

evidence, the FAB CE/HR reviews such evidence and 

determines whether it is sufficient to accept the case. If 

it is sufficient, and there are no outstanding development 

issues (such as SWC/Tort information), the FAB CE/HR may 

reverse the decision immediately and accept the case. If 

the evidence is sufficient to warrant further development, 

FAB remands the case. Provided no technical or procedural 

errors exist, FAB upholds the RD and issues a final 

decision to deny the claim. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 21 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. FAB Final Decisions. (Continued) 

If the RD denies one claim element and develops another 

claim element, the designated CE2 continues to develop the 

claim element that is not before the FAB. 

(1) For non-contested denials, absent any technical 

or procedural error, the FAB issues a FD accepting the 

RD findings and denying the claim for benefits in 

cases where no timely objection is filed or a waiver 

is received. Where no waiver is received, the FD is 

issued as soon as possible after the 60-day post-RD 

objection period expires. 

(2) For contested denials, the FAB considers the 

timely filed written objection by either conducting a 

hearing or a review of the written record before a FD 

is issued, as appropriate. 

c. Contested Decisions. After considering a timely filed 

written objection by conducting a hearing or reviewing the 

written record, FAB issues a decision based upon its 

independent findings. The FAB can issue a FD, a remand 

order returning the case file to the DO for further 

development or some other action, or a FD reversing a RD 

denying benefits. Remand orders and FD reversals are 

discussed below and can be issued on both contested and 

non-contested claims. 

(1) A review of the written record (RWR) is performed 

after a claimant has objected to the findings of a RD 

without requesting an oral hearing. The FAB will 

review the written record, the claimant’s objection, 

and any additional evidence submitted to determine 

whether the RD findings can be reversed to accept the 

claim or remanded for further development. Once this 

review is complete, the FAB issues a decision 

accordingly. 

(2) Once the FAB conducts the hearing and satisfies 

all of the requirements of the hearing process, a 

decision is issued. While the hearing itself may 

entertain objections raised from several RDs, one FAB 

decision will be issued that addresses each contested 

RD after the resolution of the entire hearing process. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 22 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. FAB Final Decisions. (Continued) 

(3) Each FAB decision following a hearing outlines 

the facts of the case, lists and comprehensively 

addresses the objection(s) raised at the hearing 

through testimony, exhibits presented, objections 

noted in the hearing request letter and subsequent 

letters, briefly outlines the hearing process, and 

thoroughly discusses the findings and/or conclusions 

of the FAB. In the case of an RWR, the FAB CE/HR must 

review all objections raised in the RWR objection 

letter and respond to each objection clearly and 

comprehensively. 

d. Remand Orders. Should the FAB find a technical, 

procedural, or some other error requiring a remand order, 

the FAB returns the case file to the DO with instructions 

as to how to proceed further. Remand orders are largely 

issued in instances where further development is required 

at the DO level. 

(1) FAB does not issue a remand order where FAB 

personnel can conduct minor development to resolve the 

issue at hand. Such minor development is conducted by 

FAB staff, not the CE2. An example is a missing 

divorce certificate, birth certificate, or an updated 

SWC/Tort Questionnaire. If FAB cannot resolve the 

issue in a timely manner, the FAB CE/HR will remand 

the case. 

(2) Where a case is at FAB for review of one claim 

element and a remand order is issued on another claim 

element, the designated CE2 addresses the remand 

order. If there are no outstanding issues before FAB, 

the remand order and case file is returned to the DO 

that issued the RD. 

(3) FAB may also issue remand orders in part, 

returning one portion of the claim to the DO for 

further action and issuing a FD on other portions of 

the claim. 

(4) A remand order is written in narrative format to 

the claimant(s), but does not contain the normal 

sections of a FD (Statement of Case, Findings of Fact, 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 23 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

7. FAB Final Decisions. (Continued) 

and Conclusions of Law). However, it should discuss 

the objections raised and provide an overview of the 

hearing process. 

 

e. Reversal. A reversal is a FD issued when the evidence 

shows that either the RD denied benefits in error or new 

and compelling evidence warrants overturning a RD denial 

and accepting a claim for benefits. 

(1) A reversal can be issued when a case is denied in 

full or in part. In partial denials, the FAB may 

reverse to accept if the portion of the claim denied 

by the RD is found to be in posture for acceptance, a 

DO error is identified, or new evidence is received 

that warrants a reversal. 

(2) A decision reversing the RD is used only where a 

denial is reversed to accept benefits. The rationale 

for reversals must be clearly stated in the body of 

the decision and forwarded with the case file to the 

FAB Chief for review and approval. A reversal cannot 

be issued without such approval. 

(3) When considering a reversal, FAB must be mindful 

of tort offset/SWC coordination and determine whether 

anyone received a settlement that might reduce the 

EEOICPA benefit. 

f. Reconsiderations. FAB-NO and all DO FABs have 

authority to review requests for reconsideration and issue 

decisions according to 20 C.F.R. 30.319. 

8. Preparation of FDs. As with RDs, multiple FAB decisions 

are possible on one case. Given the requirement that any RD 

deciding the eligibility of any one claimant to receive benefits 

include all claimants’ party to the decision; a FD cannot be 

issued deciding any one claimant’s eligibility to receive 

benefits without including all claimants as party to the 

decision. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the FAB to 

remand any RD which does not comply with these procedures and 

instruct the DO to issue a new RD to address the eligibility of 

each party to the claim. This may require the reopening of 

certain claims (see EEOICPA PM 2-1900). 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 24 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. Preparation of FDs. (Continued) 

FAB decisions are written to be as transparent to the claimant 

as possible and are designed to avoid confusion on the part of 

the recipient. The FAB decision clearly identifies the Part of 

the Act under which benefits are awarded or denied so that the 

claimant clearly understands the decision. They include 

statutory/regulatory language in the conclusions of law when 

outlining the benefits being awarded or denied. 

a. Three Components. The FAB representative must prepare 

three components before issuing a FD (a sample of a 

complete FD is shown as Exhibit 10): 

(1) A cover letter explaining that a final decision 

has been reached. The cover letter must clearly 

identify what is being accepted or denied and under 

what part of the Act. This letter provides general 

information about the FD process and the 

administrative review available to the claimant. 

(2) The final decision. 

(3) Certificates of service certify that each listed 

claimant and his or her authorized representative was 

mailed a copy of the FD. A separate certificate of 

service is created for each claimant, but a claimant 

and his or her authorized representative may appear on 

the same certificate of service. 

An acceptance may include two other components: (1) a 

medical benefits letter explaining entitlement to medical 

benefits for an accepted condition; and/or (2) an 

Acceptance of Payment form (EN-20), which is required 

before a payment can be issued. 

b. Formatting and Content, FD for Acceptances, Contested 

Decisions, Denials, and Reversals. Where a FD is prepared 

for an acceptance, contested decision, denial or reversal, 

it must contain the following sections in the following 

sequence: 

(1) Statement of the Case. This section sets out the 

case history up to the point of the issuance of the 

FD, including FAB actions, and other pertinent 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 25 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. Preparation of FDs. (Continued) 

information in a clear, concise narrative. No analysis 

of the facts or law and no citations appear in this 

section. 

(2) Objections. This section discusses any objection 

raised by the claimant in writing or through an oral 

hearing and includes FAB’s response to the objection. 

No analysis of the law or citations appear in this 

section. 

(3) Findings of Fact. This section is a recitation 

of all facts pertinent to the ultimate decision 

rendered by the FAB. The findings of fact are the 

most significant findings from the Statement of the 

Case that are needed to support the FD ruling. Each 

finding is numbered sequentially in bullet form. The 

findings should draw conclusions from the evidence of 

record, not simply recite the statement of the case. 

(4) Conclusions of Law. This section contains the 

statutory and regulatory analysis used by the FAB 

reviewer to reach his or her decision. This section 

must be well reasoned and provide appropriate legal 

citations. It should not, however, consist of a list 

of statutory references without any explanation. An 

overall legal conclusion supporting the decision must 

be reached. The conclusions of law must specifically 

identify whether or not benefits are being awarded and 

under which Part. 

c. Objections to NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Decisions. 

Detailed procedures for objections to the NIOSH process and 

referrals to the DEEOIC Health Physicist are found in 

EEOICPA PM 2-1700. 

(1) Factual objections in FD. If the claimant 

submits a factual objection and the factual findings 

reported to NIOSH are supported by the evidence of 

record, the FAB CE/HR addresses the objections in the 

FD. No referral to the DEEOIC Health Physicist is 

necessary. If the factual findings reported to NIOSH 

do not appear to be supported by the evidence of 

record and the health physicist determines that a 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 26 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. Preparation of FDs. (Continued) 

rework of the dose reconstruction is necessary, the 

FAB CE/HR remands the case to the DO. 

 

(2) Technical Objections in FD. A technical 

objection involving either methodology or application 

must be referred to the DEEOIC Health Physicist. If 

the DEEOIC Health Physicist deems none of the 

technical objections plausible, the FAB CE/HR 

incorporates the findings on these technical issues 

into the FD. 

However, if the DEEOIC Health Physicist determines 

that there is substantial factual evidence that NIOSH 

had not previously considered and/or that NIOSH should 

consider an issue relating to application of 

methodology, he or she notifies the FAB CE/HR, who 

then remands the case, after supervisory approval, to 

the DO with instructions to refer the case back to 

NIOSH. In most cases, NIOSH will perform a new dose 

reconstruction based on circumstances of the remand. 

 

 (3) Objections to Methodology in FD. When an 

objection is directed at NIOSH’s methodology, the FAB 

CE/HR states in the decision that the objection cannot 

be addressed based on 20 CFR § 30.318(b) (methodology 

that NIOSH uses in arriving at reasonable estimates of 

radiation doses). The FAB CE/HR makes this statement 

only if so advised by the DEEOIC Health Physicist. 

Objections related to the content of NIOSH-IREP 

software are related to methodology. However, the 

calculation of the probability of causation using the 

 IREP software is the responsibility of the DEEOIC; 

therefore, FAB should address these objections in the 

FD. 

d. Return of FD by Postal Service. Should FAB receive a 

returned FD, the FAB CE/HR will attempt to obtain the new 

or updated address for the claimant and re-mail the 

decision. If the case has already been returned to the DO, 

FAB staff may request the file. Upon receiving a returned 

FD, the FAB CE/HR contacts the claimant by phone to confirm 

the correct address and request a change of address in 

writing, if needed. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 27 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

8. Preparation of FDs. (Continued) 

 

(1) Correct Address Found, Claimant Did Not Notify DO 

or FAB. Upon receiving the new address in writing, 

the FAB CE/HR photocopies the returned mail and sends 

it to the claimant along with another certificate of 

service for the new date and new address and a short 

cover letter explaining that “a decision was 

previously issued and a copy is attached and is being 

sent to you at your new address. Your appeal rights 

are as explained in the attachments to the final 

decision.” The returned mail, certificate of service 

and cover letter are to be spindled in the file, and a 

note written in ECMS describing the actions taken. 

ECMS should not be coded with a new FD issuance date. 

(2) Correct Address Found, Claimant Notified DO or 

FAB. If the FD was returned because the FAB CE/HR 

used the incorrect address, a new decision will have 

to be issued with a new issuance date. Only the 

claimant whose FD was returned receives a new 

decision. The returned mail and the new FD with 

attachments are to be spindled in the file and a note 

written in ECMS describing the actions taken. The new 

issuance date should be coded in ECMS. 

(3) Correct Address Not Found. If the FAB CE/HR 

cannot obtain the claimant’s correct address, the 

final decision is no longer valid and the FAB CE/HR 

issues a remand order to the DO for administrative 

closure. 

9. Claimant Rights Following the Issuance of FAB Final 

Decisions. A claimant may seek review of a FD by filing a 

request for reconsideration or by filing a request for reopening 

of the claim. This paragraph discusses requests for 

reconsideration and provides guidance relating to the initial 

receipt of requests for reopening. 

 

a. Receipt of a Request for Review. 

(1) A request for reconsideration will be considered 

timely if it was filed within 30 calendar days of the 

date of issuance of the FD. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 

30.319(b), the request will be considered to be 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 28 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

9. Claimant Rights Following the Issuance of FAB Final 

Decisions. (Continued) 

“filed” on the date the claimant mails it to the FAB, 

as determined by the postmark, or on the date the 

written request is actually received by the DO or FAB, 

whichever is the earliest determinable date. A 

request for reopening may be filed at any time after 

the FD is issued. 

(2) Any correspondence from a claimant or authorized 

representative which is received in the DO or FAB 

within 30 calendar days after the FD is issued, and 

which contains either an explicit request for 

reconsideration or language which could be reasonably 

interpreted as an intent to disagree with the FD, will 

be considered a timely filed request for 

reconsideration. 

If new evidence is received in the DO or FAB within 30 

calendar days after the FD issuance, and the new 

evidence relates to an issue which was adjudicated and 

denied in the FD, this new evidence will be considered 

a timely filed request for reconsideration. If the DO 

receives the request for reconsideration, it must be 

sent to the FAB office which issued the FD as soon as 

possible. 

(3) Upon receipt of correspondence or new evidence 

which constitutes a timely filed request for 

reconsideration, FAB will send a letter to the 

claimant acknowledging receipt of the correspondence 

or evidence and advising that such receipt is 

considered a timely filed request for reconsideration. 

(4) If correspondence received within 30 calendar 

days of the FD specifically requests a reopening 

instead of reconsideration, it will be handled as a 

reopening request by the DO. If both reconsideration 

and reopening are requested, FAB will process the 

reconsideration request first and then forward the 

claim to the DO to process the reopening request. 

 

(5) A request for reopening may take several forms: 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 29 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

9. Claimant Rights Following the Issuance of FAB Final 

Decisions. (Continued) 

(a) Any correspondence or evidence containing or 

accompanied by a specific request for reopening, 

which is received at any time after the issuance 

of the FD, will be treated as a reopening 

request. 

(b) If FAB receives correspondence or evidence 

without a specific request for reopening after 

the deadline for a timely reconsideration 

request, and the FD denied the claim to which the 

correspondence or evidence relates, FAB will 

review the evidence for possible reopening. 

If FAB determines that such correspondence or 

evidence meets the evidentiary requirements set 

forth in 20 C.F.R. § 30.320(b), the FAB-DO 

district manager or the FAB-NO Branch Chief will 

prepare a memorandum to the EEOICP Director 

outlining the case history and the nature of the 

evidence and forward the case file to the EEOICP 

Director for review for possible reopening. 

Should the evidentiary requirements not be met, 

FAB will associate the correspondence or evidence 

with the case file. In either case the claimant 

will not be notified of the actions taken by the 

FAB, because the claimant has not requested a 

specific action. 

 

(6) Upon receipt of a request for review: 

(a) Any request for reconsideration, along with 

the case file, is forwarded to FAB and assigned 

to a FAB CE/HR for review. A reconsideration 

request will not be assigned to a FAB CE/HR who 

issued the final decision for the specific claim 

element being addressed in the reconsideration 

request. The FAB CE/HR will screen the case to 

determine if the correspondence constitutes a 

request for reconsideration and, if so, if the 

request was timely filed. 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 30 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

9. Claimant Rights Following the Issuance of FAB Final 

Decisions. (Continued) 

(b) All requests for reopening received in the 

DO are initially reviewed by the DD. If a 

reopening request is received in FAB, the FAB-DO 

district manager or FAB-NO Branch Chief will 

transfer the request, any supporting evidence, 

and the case file to the DD for review. 

 

(7) Upon receipt of a timely request for 

reconsideration, the FD in question will no longer be 

deemed “final” until a decision is reached on the 

reconsideration request. Receipt of a request for 

reopening does not have a similar effect and the 

subject FD remains “final” until such time as the 

EEOICP Director issues an order reopening the claim. 

(8) A reconsideration request does not come with 

reconsideration rights, but only reopening rights. 

Therefore, if FAB denied a request for reconsideration 

and the claimant subsequently files another request 

for reconsideration of the same FD, FAB will not 

entertain the subsequent request. In this case, no 

denial order needs to be issued and no acknowledgment 

letter needs to be sent. 

b. Processing an Untimely Request for Reconsideration. 

(1) Any request for reconsideration which is not 

accompanied by a specific request for a reopening is 

considered a request for reconsideration. Any such 

request which is filed after the above-noted deadline 

for filing timely reconsideration requests is an 

untimely filed request for reconsideration. 

 

(a) No letter is sent to acknowledge receipt of 

an untimely request for reconsideration. FAB 

issues a Denial of Request for Reconsideration 

advising the claimant that the request for 

reconsideration was not filed within 30 days of 

the issuance of the final decision and must be 

denied. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 31 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

9. Claimant Rights Following the Issuance of FAB Final 

Decisions. (Continued) 

(b) If FAB concludes that any evidence received 

with an untimely request for reconsideration may 

warrant a reopening, FAB may forward the request 

to the District Director of the DO with 

jurisdiction over the claim for review. 

(2) If an untimely filed request for reconsideration 

is accompanied by a specific request for reopening, 

FAB issues a Denial of Request for Reconsideration 

based on the untimely filing. The FAB CE/HR then 

forwards the reopening request with the case file to 

the DD of the office with jurisdiction over the claim 

for review for possible reopening. 

c. Processing a Timely Request for Reconsideration. Upon 

determining that a request for reconsideration has been 

timely filed, the FAB CE/HR reviews the request and any 

accompanying evidence and decides whether to grant or deny 

the request. If, based on a review of the new evidence or 

argument submitted, the FAB CE/HR considers a review of the 

record to be warranted, the request will be granted. 

(1) To warrant a review of the evidence, the evidence 

or argument must be of sufficient weight and probative 

value to convince the FAB CE/HR that the potential 

exists to alter a material finding of fact or 

conclusion of law referenced in the FD. 

For example, if the FD denies a claim for CBD because 

the medical evidence was insufficient to establish CBD 

and the claimant submits a reconsideration request 

along with new medical evidence that could meet the 

statutory requirements for establishing CBD, the FAB 

may grant the reconsideration request. 

(a) A timely request for reconsideration may be 

denied if it does not contain sufficient 

probative evidence or substantiated argument that 

directly contradicts a material finding of fact 

or conclusion of law set forth in the FD. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 32 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

9. Claimant Rights Following the Issuance of FAB Final 

Decisions. (Continued) 

For example, if the FD denies a claim for skin 

cancer because the calculation of probability of 

causation was less than 50% and the claimant 

submits a reconsideration request but does not 

submit any additional medical or employment 

evidence that would alter the dose 

reconstruction, the FAB may deny the 

reconsideration request. 

(b) Mere disagreement with the findings or 

conclusions of the FD is not sufficient to grant 

a reconsideration request. Such requests are to 

be denied on the grounds that no new information 

was presented that would affect the FD. 

(2) If FAB grants the request for reconsideration, 

FAB performs a detailed review of the record. 

Specific procedures for conducting this review can be 

found in paragraph 6 above. 

(a) Granting reconsideration will not 

necessarily result in a reversal of the FD. It 

merely denotes that the FAB CE/HR considers the 

argument or evidence presented by the claimant to 

be of sufficient weight and quality to require a 

thorough review of the case and issuance of a new 

FD. 

(b) Upon granting the request for 

reconsideration, the existing FD is considered 

vacated and a new FD is required. 

If, after the review, FAB concludes that the case 

should be remanded to the DO for further 

development, FAB may issue an order granting the 

request for reconsideration and remanding the 

case to the DO for issuance of a new RD. 

Otherwise, FAB issues an order granting the 

request for reconsideration and a new FD on the 

claim. A new FD that is issued after FAB grants 

a request for reconsideration will be “final” 

upon the date it is issued. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 33 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

9. Claimant Rights Following the Issuance of FAB Final 

Decisions. (Continued) 

(3) If FAB denies the request for reconsideration, a 

review of the record is not performed. In the case of 

a denial, FAB issues an order denying the request for 

reconsideration and the FD which formed the basis for 

the request is considered “final” upon the issuance of 

the order denying the request. 

 

(4) If a timely request for reconsideration is 

accompanied by a specific request for a reopening, 

then upon the issuance of a denial of request for 

reconsideration FAB forwards the case file to the DD 

of the office with jurisdiction over the claim for 

processing of the reopening request. 

If FAB grants the request for reconsideration and 

issues a new FD, there is no need to process the 

reopening request and the case file is transferred to 

the DO. 

 

10. Alternative Filing, Part E. If a claimant is denied as an 

ineligible survivor under Part E, he or she has the right to 

alternatively receive a non-decision determination regarding the 

employee’s claimed illness(es). FAB advises the claimant of 

this right in the cover letter of the FD (see Exhibit 11 for a 

sample letter). 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 34 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

SAMPLE REMAND ORDER

EMPLOYEE: [Employee’s Name]

CLAIMANT: [Claimant’s Name]

FILE NUMBER: [Last 4 digits of file #]

DOCKET NUMBER: [Docket Number]

DECISION DATE: [Decision Date]

REMAND ORDER 

This order of the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) concerns your 

claim for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA 

or the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. Your case is remanded to 

the EEOICP district office for consideration of the new medical 

evidence received that established a cancer diagnosis. 

On November 9, 2005, you filed a claim for survivor benefits 

under the Act, based upon the claim that the employee 

contracted skin cancer, seizures and heart problems while 

employed at the Iowa Ordnance Plant. You submitted no medical 

evidence to establish that the employee was diagnosed with 

cancer. 

On May 16, 2006, the district office issued a recommended 

decision concluding that there was insufficient evidence to 

establish an occupational illness under Part B of the Act and 

that there was insufficient evidence to establish a covered 

illness under Part E of the Act. Therefore, it was recommended 

that your claim for survivor benefits under the Act be denied. 

On May 30, 2006, you filed objections to the recommended 

decision and requested a hearing. 

On August 18, 2006, a hearing was conducted on your objections. 

At, and subsequent to, the hearing, you submitted additional 

medical evidence. The medical records submitted support a 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 Page 1 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

finding that the employee was diagnosed with basal cell 

carcinoma, i.e. skin cancer. This new evidence is sufficient 

to warrant further development of the claim. 

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 30.317: “At any time before issuance of 

its final decision, the FAB may . . . return the claim to the 

district office for further development and/or issuance of a new 

recommended decision without issuing a final decision, whether 

or not requested to do so by the claimant.” Therefore, the May 

16, 2006 recommended decision is vacated and the case is being 

returned to the EEOICP district office for further development 

and issuance of a new recommended decision. 

Washington, DC 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 Page 2 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

SAMPLE REMAND ORDER COVER LETTER 

Date 

Claimant Name Last 4 Digits of File Number: 

Address 

Dear Claimant: 

Enclosed please find the Remand Order concerning your claim for 

compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act. 

Please note that the remand order is directed to the EEOICP 

district office. Unless you are contacted by that office for 

additional information, you are not required to take any action 

at this time. I regret any inconvenience caused to you by this 

remand. 

Your file is being returned to the district office. Future 

correspondence, inquiries, or telephone calls may be directed to the 

district office. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 Page 3 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on ________, a copy of the Notice of Final 

Decision(or Remand Order) was sent by regular mail to the 

following: 

 

Claimant Name 

Claimant Address 

 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

SAMPLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER, REVIEW OF WRITTEN RECORD 

Date 

Claimant Name and Address Employee: 

 Claimant: 

 Last 4 Digits of Claim Number:

Dear Claimant Name: 

On [date objection letter received], the Final Adjudication 

Branch (FAB) received a letter of objection dated [date of 

letter] stating objections to the(district office)district 

office’s recommended decision of (date of RD) which recommends 

denial of your claim for benefits under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). 

The objections, along with the information in the file, will be 

carefully considered and included in our final decision. If 

you have any additional evidence that you wish to be 

considered, it must be received by the FAB within 20 calendar 

days of this letter. After that date, a review of the written 

record will be made and a final decision will be issued. Any 

evidence you wish to be considered should be submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

DEEOICP 

Final Adjudication Branch 

P.O. Box XXXX 

City, State Zip Code 

If you wish, you may submit such evidence via fax to (xxx) xxxxxxx. Please ensure that your file number shown above is noted 

on any documentation you send to this office. 

Sincerely, 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 3 

October 2009

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

 SAMPLE ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER, HEARING 

Dear Claimant Name: 

The Final Adjudication Branch of the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program has received and 

docketed your letter dated February 1, 2008, objecting to the 

recommended decision of the DISTRICT OFFICE dated December 11, 

2007. Your request for a hearing has been noted and a hearing 

will be scheduled. 

Please be advised that your notification of the time, date and 

location of your hearing will be mailed at least 30 days prior to 

the date set for your hearing. The hearing will be conducted 

within reasonable distances or via phone. At the hearing, you 

will be provided the opportunity to present your objections to 

the recommended decision, along with any additional evidence you 

would like to present. This testimony will be made under oath 

and transcribed by a court reporter for inclusion in your case 

file. If there is more than one claimant involved in this case, 

each is allowed to participate in the hearing. You may designate 

an attorney or other individual to be present and to represent 

you at the hearing. You are not, however, required to have a 

representative present at the hearing. 

If you prefer, you may have a hearing by telephone instead of in 

person. You should request that in writing as soon as possible 

so we can make appropriate arrangements. You may send that 

request by fax to (xxx) xxx-xxxx – ATTN: Hearings Unit. Any 

additional correspondence should be directed to: 

U.S. Department of Labor, EEOICP 

Attn: Final Adjudication Branch 

PO Box xxxx 

City, State ZIP 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

Program Specialist 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 4 

October 2009

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

SAMPLE HEARING NOTICE TO CLAIMANT WHO FILED AN OBJECTION 

RE: NOTICE OF HEARING 

 

Dear Claimant Name: 

A hearing has been scheduled concerning the above referenced 

claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et 

seq. (EEOICPA or the Act). The hearing will begin promptly at 

TIME AM/PM on DAY, DATE at the following location: 

 

BUILDING NAME 

STREET ADDRESS 

CITY, ST ZIP-CODE 

(XXX) XXX-XXXX (for directions only) 

Please bring a photo I.D. so that you may be admitted into the 

building. 

The specific issue to be addressed at the hearing: [If it is a 

Part E hearing request: The issue to be addressed at the hearing 

is whether you are entitled to compensation and benefits under 

Part E of the EEOICPA. If it is a Part B and Part E hearing 

request: The issues to be addressed at the hearing are whether 

you are entitled to compensation and benefits under Part B and 

Part E of the EEOICPA.] 

 

You must inform me of any person other than your authorized 

representative that will be attending the hearing with you not 

later than XXXXXX (1 week prior to the date of the hearing). 

Please be aware that in such circumstances, all claimants who 

have requested this hearing must sign a “WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO 

CONFIDENTIALITY.” Additionally, I will need to determine 

whether proper room arrangements can be made to accommodate the 

number of people expected to attend the hearing. 

Please be advised that the security requirements of the XXXXXXXX 

(Federal Building) require me to provide a list of all 

attendees. Anyone not on the list will not be admitted to the 

building and will not be able to attend the hearing. 

The hearing is an informal process, and I am not bound by common 

law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 5 

October 2009 Page 1 of 4 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

rules of procedure. During the hearing, you may state your 

arguments and present new written evidence and/or testimony in 

support of the claim. Oral testimony will be made under oath or 

affirmation and is recorded. The recording of the hearing 

proceedings is then transcribed and placed in the record. You 

will be provided a copy of the hearing transcript. You or 

anyone else present may not make your own video or audio 

recording of the hearing. 

I determine the conduct of the hearing and may terminate the 

hearing at any time I determine that all relevant evidence has 

been obtained or because of misbehavior on the part of the 

claimant and/or representative, or any other persons in 

attendance at or near the place of the hearing. 

[Add this paragraph if the hearing concerns the POC] Since the 

issues raised relate to the dose reconstruction process, it is 

important for you to know that the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has full authority under 

the regulations to complete the dose reconstruction as 

prescribed in its rules. The dose reconstruction is used by the 

Department of Labor to determine the probability that the 

claimed cancer is related to employment at a covered facility. 

During the hearing, I am not authorized to address NIOSH 

methodology and therefore will not be in a position to discuss 

the way in which NIOSH prepares the dose reconstruction. You 

may present your objections at the hearing, including any 

evidence or information you wish to submit and all arguments, 

evidence and information will be entered into the record. 

However, I can discuss only issues of a factual nature regarding 

the information you provided to NIOSH, and which that agency 

used to perform the dose reconstruction. 

I have attached additional information regarding the hearing 

procedures for your review. If you have any questions 

concerning these procedures, please feel free to contact me at 

(xxx) xxx-xxxx. 

Sincerely, 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch 

Enclosure

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 5 

Ocotber 2009 Page 2 of 4 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

HEARING PROCEDURES 

BEFORE THE DATE OF THE HEARING: Before the date of the hearing, 

please submit any additional evidence that you wish me to 

consider. However, if such evidence is submitted on the date of 

the hearing or within thirty (30) days after the hearing, it 

will still be carefully considered and made part of the record. 

You must notify me at least one (1) week prior to the date of 

the hearing if persons other than claimants involved with the 

case, to include any properly appointed authorized 

representatives, will be attending the hearing. Please be aware 

that in such circumstances, all claimants who have requested 

this hearing must sign a “WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO CONFIDENTIALITY.” 

Additionally, I will need to determine whether proper room 

arrangements can be made to accommodate the number of people 

expected to attend the hearing. 

The hearing is an informal process, and I am not bound by common 

law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal 

rules of procedure. During the hearing, you may state your 

arguments and present new written evidence and/or testimony in 

support of the claim. Oral testimony will be made under oath or 

affirmation and is recorded. The recording of the hearing 

proceedings is then transcribed and placed in the record. You 

will be provided a copy of the hearing transcript. You may not 

make your own video or audio recording of the hearing. 

NO POSTPONEMENT WILL BE GRANTED UNLESS EXTREMELY COMPELLING 

CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST: If you are hospitalized for a reason which 

is not elective, or where the death of your parent, spouse, or 

child prevents attendance at the hearing, a postponement may be 

granted upon proper documentation. Please contact the Final 

Adjudication Branch at (XXX) XXX-XXXX, if an emergency arises. 

If a postponement cannot be granted, the request for a hearing 

will automatically convert to a request for a review of the 

written record. If you do not appear at the scheduled time and 

place, the request for a hearing will automatically convert to a 

request for a review of the written record. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 5 

October 2009 Page 3 of 4 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR HEARING: At any time after requesting 

a hearing, you can request a change to review of the written 

record by making a written request to the Final Adjudication 

Branch. Once such a change is made, no further opportunity for 

a hearing will be provided, and I will review the written 

record. 

HEARING BY TELEPHONE: If you would like to have a hearing by 

telephone, please contact the Final Adjudication Branch at (XXX) 

XXX-XXXX. Any testimony presented at the telephone hearing will 

be made under oath or affirmation and the testimony will be 

recorded by a court reporter and made part of the record. 

Telephone hearings can not be conducted on cell phones. 

REPRESENTATION: You may designate a person to represent you 

to help you prepare your case and/or present your case at the 

hearing. Your representative can be an attorney, but he or 

she need not be. There are rules concerning the maximum fee 

an attorney can charge you. 

AFTER THE HEARING: I will furnish a transcript of the 

hearing to you (at no charge) within a few weeks after the 

hearing. You will then have twenty (20) days from the date 

it is sent to submit any comments to me. You will also have 

thirty (30) days after the hearing is held to submit 

additional evidence or argument, unless an extension is 

granted. Only one such extension may be granted. After the 

hearing, I will study the record and make findings based on 

the evidence, including testimony taken at the hearing, and 

issue a written decision. 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 5 

October 2009 Page 4 of 4 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

 

SAMPLE HEARING NOTICE TO CLAIMANT WHO DID NOT FILE AN OBJECTION 

Dear Claimant Name: 

A hearing has been scheduled concerning the above referenced 

claim under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et 

seq. (EEOICPA or the Act). The file indicates that you did not 

file an objection to the recommended decision of the district 

office. However if you wish, you may participate in the hearing. 

The option to participate by telephone is available, but you must 

let me know immediately. The hearing will begin promptly at TIME 

AM/PM on DAY, DATE at the following location: 

 

BUILDING NAME 

STREET ADDRESS 

CITY, ST ZIP-CODE 

(XXX) XXX-XXXX (for directions only) 

Please bring a photo I.D. so that you may be admitted into the 

building. 

The specific issue to be addressed at the hearing: [If it is a 

Part E hearing request: The issue to be addressed at the hearing 

is whether you are entitled to compensation and benefits under 

Part E of the EEOICPA. If it is a Part B and Part E hearing 

request: The issues to be addressed at the hearing are whether 

you are entitled to compensation and benefits under Part B and 

Part E of the EEOICPA.] 

You must notify me at least one (1) week prior to the date of 

the hearing if persons other than claimants involved with the 

case, and a properly appointed authorized representative, will 

be attending the hearing. Please be aware that in such 

circumstances, all claimants who have requested this hearing 

must sign a “WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO CONFIDENTIALITY.” 

Additionally, I will need to determine whether proper room 

arrangements can be made to accommodate the number of people 

expected to attend the hearing. 

Please be advised that the security requirements of the XXXXXXXX 

(Federal Building) require me to provide a list of all 

attendees. Anyone not on the list will not be admitted to the 

building and will not be able to attend the hearing. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 6 

October 2009 Page 1 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

The hearing is an informal process, and I am not bound by common 

law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal 

rules of procedure. During the hearing, you may state your 

arguments and present new written evidence and/or testimony in 

support of the claim. Oral testimony will be made under oath or 

affirmation and is recorded. The recording of the hearing 

proceedings is then transcribed and placed in the record. You 

will be provided a copy of the hearing transcript. You or 

anyone else present may not make your own video or audio 

recording of the hearing. 

I determine the conduct of the hearing and may terminate the 

hearing at any time I determine that all relevant evidence has 

been obtained or because of misbehavior on the part of the 

claimant and/or representative, or any other persons in 

attendance at or near the place of the hearing. 

[Add this paragraph if the hearing concerns the POC] Since the 

issues raised relate to the dose reconstruction process, it is 

important for you to know that the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has full authority under 

the regulations to complete the dose reconstruction as 

prescribed in its rules. The dose reconstruction is used by the 

Department of Labor to determine the probability that the 

claimed cancer is related to employment at a covered facility. 

During the hearing, I am not authorized to address NIOSH 

methodology and therefore will not be in a position to discuss 

the way in which NIOSH prepares the dose reconstruction. You 

may present your objections at the hearing, including any 

evidence or information you wish to submit and all arguments, 

evidence and information will be entered into the record. 

However, I can discuss only issues of a factual nature regarding 

the information you provided to NIOSH, and which that agency 

used to perform the dose reconstruction. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 6 

October 2009 Page 2 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

I have attached additional information regarding the hearing 

procedures for your review. If you have any questions 

concerning these procedures, please feel free to contact me at 

(xxx) xxx-xxxx. 

Sincerely, 

Name of Hearing Representative 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch 

Enclosure 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 6 

October 2009 Page 3 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO CONFIDENTIALITY 

 

I, ______________________, (File Number ____________), 

residing at ____________________________, am aware that persons 

other than claimants involved in the above case or their 

authorized representative may be present at a hearing convened 

under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act (EEOICPA) on ______________, at _____ AM/PM in 

_________________, in the State of _____________________. 

I have requested the presence of these persons, or accept 

their presence at this proceeding, and I hereby waive any right 

to confidentiality of records, documents or other materials 

contained in files maintained by the Office of Workers 

Compensation Programs and disclosed during the hearing. I 

further waive any right to privacy under the Privacy Act of 1974 

in the disclosure of records, documents or other materials 

related to my claim that may be released during the course of 

the hearing. 

Acknowledged and signed this ______day of ________, 2009. 

____________________________ 

 (signature) 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 7 

October 2009

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

WAIVER OF RIGHTS TO CONFIDENTIALITY (MEDIA) 

 

I, ______________________, (File Number _____________) 

residing at ____________________________, am aware that 

representatives of the print and/or broadcast media may be 

present at a hearing convened under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) on 

______________, at _____ AM/PM in _________________, in the 

State of _____________________. 

I have requested the presence of these persons, or accept 

their presence at this proceeding, and I hereby waive any right 

to confidentiality of records, documents or other materials 

contained in files maintained by the Office of Workers 

Compensation Programs and disclosed during the hearing. I 

further waive any right to privacy under the Privacy Act of 1974 

in the disclosure of records, documents or other materials 

related to my claim that may be released during the course of 

the hearing. 

Acknowledged and signed this ______day of ________, 2009. 

 ____________________________________ 

 (signature) 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 8 

October 2009

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

SAMPLE HEARING SCRIPT 

CONVENING THE HEARING 

I. OPENING, AUTHORITY, AND NARRATIVE 

We will now open the record. Today is _____________, and it is 

_________AM/PM. My name is ____________ and I have been 

designated to conduct this hearing and to receive the objections 

of EMPLOYEE/CLAIMANT. (At this point indicate whether or not 

claimant is represented by counsel or other authorized 

representative). This case is identified under claim number 

xxx-xx-xxxx and carries docket number xxxx-2008. 

This hearing is convened under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act (I will make future references 

to it as the Act), and is governed by the provisions of Title 

20, Section 30.314 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These 

regulations provide claimants with the right to object to a 

recommended decision of a district office. While this hearing 

is informal and not governed by rules of evidence, I will 

administer an oath or affirmation to every person providing 

testimony today. I will first review the history of your claim 

as it appears in the written record. You may then present 

testimony, argument, and any additional evidence addressing the 

merits of your claim. 

On DATE OF FILING, you submitted an EE-(1 or 2)form to the NAME 

OF LOCATION district office claiming benefits under the Act. On 

your EE-1/2 form, you claimed LIST FORM OF CANCER as the claimed 

condition related to employment under the Act. You also 

submitted an EE-3 form indicating employment at LIST FACILITY, 

DATES OF EMPLOYMENT AND COVERED PERIOD FOR FACILITY. You 

submitted evidence establishing your employment at NAME FACILITY 

and submitted BRIEFLY OUTLINE MEDICAL EVIDENCE establishing a 

cancer diagnosis. 

Since YOUR/THE EMPLOYMENT did not qualify YOU/THE EMPLOYEE for 

membership in the special exposure cohort, the DISTRICT OFFICE 

forwarded your claim file information to the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (hereinafter referred to as 

NIOSH) for radiation dose reconstruction. The district office 

undertook such an action pursuant to the instructions set out in 

the regulations governing the Act. The Act and implementing 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 9 

October 2009 Page 1 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

regulations mandate that when a claimant with covered employment 

establishes a cancer diagnosis, NIOSH will prepare a radiation 

dose reconstruction. The Department of Labor then applies a 

formula to the dose reconstruction in order to determine whether 

the employee’s cancer is as least as likely as not related to 

the covered employment. 

NIOSH provided a report of the dose reconstruction and DISTRICT 

OFFICE found that there was a % probability that YOUR/THE 

EMPLOYEE’S cancer was causally related to employment under the 

Act. As such, it was determined that the cancer was not found 

to be at least as likely as not related to employment under the 

Act. Accordingly, the DISTRICT OFFICE issued its recommended 

decision on DATE OF RD recommending denial of your claim for 

benefits under the Act. 

II. STATEMENT OF OBJECTION AND NIOSH DISCLAIMER 

On DATE OF OBJECTION, you filed your objection to the 

recommended decision and requested an oral hearing. You have 

objected specifically that the NIOSH dose reconstruction failed 

to show enough exposure so the DO could find that YOUR/THE 

EMPLOYEE’S cancer was at least as likely as not related to 

YOUR/THE EMPLOYEE’S employment. 

At this time I would like to say something about the NIOSH dose 

reconstruction. NIOSH is given full authority under the 

regulations that govern the Act to conduct the dose 

reconstruction used by the Department of Labor to determine the 

probability that a cancer is related to employment. I am, 

therefore, not in a position to discuss the way in which NIOSH 

goes about preparing the dose reconstruction report. However, I 

can discuss issues of a factual nature regarding the information 

you provided to NIOSH, and challenges to the application of 

NIOSH’s methodology. I am here to take your objections and 

enter them into the evidence of record, but I am not permitted 

to consider objections to NIOSH methodology at this time. 

III. ADMINISTER OATH AND TAKE EVIDENCE 

As stated previously, while the hearing is designated as an 

informal process, anyone giving testimony today is required to 

do so under Oath. Mr./Ms. Claimant, will you please raise your 

hand? (Administer Oath: “Do you swear/affirm to tell the truth 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 9 

October 2009 Page 2 of 3

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

in the testimony you are about to give in these proceedings 

today?” 

Mr/Ms. Claimant, will you please, for the record, state your 

full name and address, and then proceed to give your testimony 

for the record. 

AT THIS POINT, ALLOW THE CLAIMANT TO GIVE ORAL TESTIMONY AND 

ENTER SUCH DOCUMENTS AS THE CLAIMANT MAY DESIRE INTO THE RECORD 

AS EVIDENCE. IDENTIFY AND MARK EACH AND EVERY EXHIBIT AND 

NUMBER EACH EXHIBIT SEQUENTIALLY. 

IV. CLOSING 

Before closing, I will advise Mr./Ms. Claimant of what will 

transpire from this date forward. These proceedings will be 

transcribed, and a copy of the transcript will be provided to 

you. I will leave the record open for another 30 days for you 

to submit any additional evidence. You also have 20 days from 

the date of mailing of the transcript to offer any corrections 

or comments on the transcript. Any such additional evidence or 

comments will be included in the record and considered, along 

with your hearing testimony and all of the evidence already in 

the record, prior to issuance of the final decision. If there 

is no other testimony to be given in this matter, I will close 

the hearing. It is now _____A.M/P.M. and this hearing is 

closed.

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 9 

October 2009 Page 3 of 3 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

SAMPLE COMPLETE FINAL DECISION 

Dear Claimant Name: 

Enclosed please a Final Decision on your claim for compensation 

under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act (EEOICPA). Your claim under Part E has been 

approved for $125,000. 

I have enclosed the Acceptance of Payment form (EN-20), which is 

required before the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs can 

issue payment to you. You must complete the form in permanent 

ink and there can be no cross outs or other marks. Do not use 

white out or correction tape. Any alteration of the form will 

result in it being rendered unusable for purposes of issuing 

payment. If you make a mistake or need another form, please 

contact the district office handling your claim. You must submit 

the form with an original signature. Faxes or other copied 

version of the EN-20 is not acceptable. A second copy of the 

form is attached in case a mistake is made. Only one form needs 

to be returned. Please check with your financial institution 

before returning the form to us to verify the routing number and 

your account number so that your money arrives promptly and to 

the correct account. 

Please email the completed and signed original EN-20 to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

DEEOIC, District Office 

 P.O. Box XXXX 

 City, State ZIP 

Please be advised that the final decision on your claim may be 

posted on the agency’s website if it contains significant 

findings of fact or conclusions of law that might be of interest 

to the public. If it is posted, your final decision will not 

contain your file number, nor will it identify you or your 

family members by name. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 10 

October 2009 Page 1 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

Any future correspondence, inquiries, or telephone calls should 

be directed to the (District Office) district office. Thank you 

for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 10 

October 2009 Page 2 of 7

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

EMPLOYEE: [Name]

CLAIMANT: [Name]

FILE NUMBER: [Number]

DOCKET NUMBER: [Number]

DECISION DATE: [Date]

 

NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION 

 

This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) 

concerning your claim for compensation under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, 

as amended (EEOICPA or the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. For 

the reasons set forth below, the FAB accepts and approves your 

claim for compensation under Part E. 

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

 

On October 5, 2001, you filed a Form EE-2 (Claim for Survivor 

Benefits under the EEOICPA) with the Department of Labor (DOL). 

You also filed a Form OWA1 (Request for Review by Medical Panels 

under the EEOICPA) with the Department of Energy (DOE). You 

filed these claims as the surviving spouse of [Employee], based 

on the condition of lung cancer. You provided medical evidence 

including a pathology report dated February 11, 1994, diagnosing 

[Employee] with poorly differentiated large cell carcinoma of 

the right lung. 

 

A representative of the DOE verified that [Employee] was 

employed at the Hanford site, a DOE facility, as a nuclear 

process operator from December 16, 1954 to July 5, 1957, and 

from October 1, 1962 to April 30, 1993. 

 

You submitted a copy of a marriage certificate showing you and 

[Employee] were married on April 4, 1956. You also submitted a 

copy of the employee’s death certificate which showed that he 

died as a result of lung cancer, and that you were his surviving 

spouse at the time of his death on July 14, 1997. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 10 

October 2009 Page 3 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

On January 19, 2006, the FAB issued a final decision under Part 

B of the Act to deny your claim for benefits, finding that the 

employee’s lung cancer was not “at least as likely as not” (a 

50% or greater probability) caused by radiation doses incurred 

while he was employed at the Hanford site. 

 

In developing your claim under Part E, the Seattle district 

office analyzed the evidence of record and reviewed DOL’s Site 

Exposure Matrices (SEM), in an effort to determine the type of 

toxic substances the employee could potentially have been 

exposed to while working at the Hanford site as a nuclear 

process operator. SEM was also searched to determine whether 

there was a possible association between the toxic substances 

the employee was exposed to and his lung cancer. 

Source documents used to compile SEM establish that the 

employee’s occupational category as nuclear process operator, 

and/or work location in Area 200, at the Hanford site likely 

exposed him to toxic substances (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

cadmium oxide, chromic acid, chromium, chromium III, sodium 

chromate, sulfuric acid and vinyl chloride space (Monomeric)), 

that are known to cause lung cancer. 

 

On November 20, 2006, the district office forwarded your file, 

including the information obtained from SEM, to a District 

Medical Consultant (DMC) for a medical opinion of the claim. On 

November 26, 2006, the DMC opined that it is “at least as likely 

as not” that [Employee]’s exposure to arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, cadmium oxide, chromic acid, chromium, chromium III, 

sodium chromate, sulfuric acid and vinyl chloride space 

(Monomeric) contributed to his death from lung cancer. 

 

Based on the DMC opinion and the evidence of record, the 

district office concluded that there was sufficient evidence of 

exposure meeting the “at least as likely as not” criteria that 

toxic exposure at a DOE facility was a significant factor in 

aggravating, contributing to, or causing the employee’s death. 

 

On December 8, 2006, the Seattle district office issued a 

recommended decision to accept your claim based on the 

condition of lung cancer and to award you compensation in the 

amount of $125,000.00 under Part E. 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 10 

October 2009 Page 4 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

The evidence of record includes a letter dated December 13, 

2006, in which you indicated that neither you nor your spouse 

have filed a lawsuit or received a settlement relevant to the 

claimed exposures. You also indicated that you and your spouse 

have never filed for or received any payments, awards or 

benefits from a state workers’ compensation claim in relation to 

the claimed condition, or pled guilty to or been convicted of 

any charges connected with an application for or receipt of 

federal or state workers’ compensation. Further, you indicated 

that your spouse had no minor children or children incapable of 

self-support, who were not your natural or adopted children, at 

the time of his death. 

 

After considering the evidence of record, the FAB hereby makes 

the following: 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

 

1. On October 5, 2001, you filed a claim for survivor benefits 

with DOL and DOE under the EEOICPA. 

 

2. You are the surviving spouse of [Employee] and were married 

to him for at least one year immediately prior to his 

death. 

 

3. [Employee] was employed at the Hanford site, a covered DOE 

facility, as a nuclear process operator, from December 16, 

1954 to July 5, 1957, and from October 1, 1962 to April 30, 

1993. 

 

4. The employee was diagnosed with lung cancer on February 11, 

1994 after starting work at a covered DOE facility. 

 

5. Previously the FAB issued a final decision under Part B of 

the Act to deny your claim for benefits, finding that the 

employee’s lung cancer was not “at least as likely as not” 

(a 50% or greater probability) caused by radiation doses 

incurred while employed at the Hanford site. 

 

6. On November 26, 2006, the DMC opined that, in the absence 

of evidence to the contrary, it is at least as likely as 

not that [Employee]’s work exposure to arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, cadmium oxide, chromic acid, chromium, chromium 

III, sodium chromate, sulfuric acid and vinyl chloride 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 10 

October 2009 Page 5 of 7

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

space (Monomeric) was a significant factor in contributing 

to his death from lung cancer. 

 

7. The evidence of record supports a causal connection between 

the employee’s death due to lung cancer and his exposure to 

toxic substances at a DOE facility. 

 

8. You have never filed a lawsuit and received a settlement or 

award based on the claimed exposures; at the time of your 

spouse’s death, he had no had no minor children or children 

incapable of self-support who were not your natural or 

adopted children; and you or your spouse have not ever 

filed a state workers’ compensation claim for your spouse’s 

claimed condition. 

 

Based on the above-noted findings of fact in this claim, the FAB 

hereby makes the following: 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

 

The undersigned has reviewed the recommended decision issued by 

the district office on December 8, 2006. I find that you have 

not filed any objections to the recommended decision, and that 

the sixty-day period for filing such objections has expired. 

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 30.310(a) and 30.316(a). 

 

Source documents used to compile SEM establish that the 

employee’s occupational category as nuclear process operator, 

and/or work location in Area 200, at the Hanford site likely 

exposed him to toxic substances (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

cadmium oxide, chromic acid, chromium, chromium III, sodium 

chromate, sulfuric acid and vinyl chloride space (Monomeric)), 

that are known to cause lung cancer. 

 

On November 26, 2006, the DMC opined that, in the absence of 

evidence to the contrary, it is at least as likely as not that 

[Employee]’s exposure to arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cadmium 

oxide, chromic acid, chromium, chromium III, sodium chromate, 

sulfuric acid and vinyl chloride space (Monomeric) was a 

significant factors in contributing to his death from lung 

cancer. 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 10 

October 2009 Page 6 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________ 

The evidence of record establishes that the employee was a DOE 

contractor employee as defined by § 7385s(1). The employee was 

diagnosed with a “covered illness,” lung cancer, as defined by § 

7385s(2). The employee contracted that “covered illness” 

through exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility. You 

are the employee’s surviving spouse. Accordingly, you are 

entitled to compensation benefits in the amount of $125,000.00 

under Part E. 

 

Seattle, WA, 

 

 

Hearing Representative 

Final Adjudication Branch 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 10 

October 2009 Page 7 of 7

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

SAMPLE COVER LETTER, ALTERNATIVE FILING 

Dear Claimant Name: 

Enclosed please find the Notice of Final Decision which denies 

your claim for compensation and benefits under the Energy 

Employees’ Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA). If you disagree with this decision, you may request 

reconsideration. Such a request must be in writing and must be 

made within 30 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 

It must clearly state the grounds upon which reconsideration is 

being requested. In order to ensure that you receive an 

independent evaluation of the evidence, your request for 

reconsideration will be reviewed by a different Final 

Adjudication Branch hearing representative than that who issued 

the final decision. Your request for reconsideration should be 

sent to: 

 

U.S. Department of Labor 

DEEOIC 

Final Adjudication Branch 

P. O. Box XXX 

CITY, STATE ZIP CODE 

If your claim was denied because you have not established 

covered employment or a covered illness and you have new 

evidence of either covered employment or a covered illness, you 

may request a reopening of your claim. If your claim was denied 

because a cancer was not causally related to work-related 

exposure to radiation and you can identify either a change in 

the probability of causation guidelines, a change in the dose 

reconstruction methods or an addition of a class of employees to 

the Special Exposure Cohort, you may also request a reopening of 

your claim. 

These requests to reopen your claim must be in writing and be 

sent, along with your supporting information, to the following 

address: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

DEEOIC, DISTRICT DIRECTOR 

P.O. BOX XXX 

CITY, STATE ZIP CODE 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 11 

October 2009 Page 1 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1800 

Part 2 – Claims FAB Decisions 

________________________________________________________________

While you do not meet the statutory definition of an eligible 

survivor as set out under Part E of the EEOICPA, you may seek an 

alternative filing review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-4(d). 

You may request such a review by writing to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

DEEOIC, DISTRICT DIRECTOR 

ADDRESS 

Alternative filing reviews assess a facility where alleged 

employment and exposure took place and render a determination as 

to potential causation. Should you wish to receive this type of 

review; the district office will provide you with a 

determination. Please note, however, that such a determination 

does not change your eligibility for benefits or establish 

causation under the Act, and is not subject to further agency or 

judicial review. 

Please be advised that the final decision on your claim may be 

posted on the agency’s website if it contains significant 

findings of fact or conclusions of law that might be of 

interest to the public. If it is posted, your final decision 

will not contain your file number, nor will it identify you or 

your family members by name. 

Except as provided above, all future correspondence, inquiries 

or telephone calls should be directed to the district office. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

Hearing Representative 

Enc: Notice of Final Decision 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 11 

October 2009 Page 2 of 2 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph and Subject Page Date Trans. No. 

Chapter 2-1900 Reopening Process 

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . i 10/09 10-02 

1 Purpose and Scope. . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

2 Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

 3 Claimant’s Explicit Request 

 for Reopening. . . . . . . . . 1 10/09 10-02 

 4 Claimant’s Nonspecific 

 Correspondence or Evidence . . 5 10/09 10-02 

 5 District Director Communications 

 About a FAB Decision . . . . . 7 10/09 10-02 

 6 Review on Motion of Director . . 7 10/09 10-02 

 7 Reopening a Claim and 

 Vacating a FAB Decision. . . . 7 10/09 10-02 

8 Reopening Multiple Claimant 

 Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10/09 10-02 

9 Denying a Specific Request for 

 a Reopening. . . . . . . . . . 9 10/09 10-02 

 10 Denying a Request to Vacate a 

 FAB Remand Order . . . . . . . 10 10/09 10-02 

 11 ECMS Coding. . . . . . . . . . . 10 10/09 10-02 

 Exhibit 

 1 Sample Director’s Order to 

 Reopen . . . . . . . . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

 2 Sample Denial of a Request for 

 Reopening. . . . . . . . . . . 10/09 10-02 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 i 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

1. Purpose and Scope. This chapter describes the process 

by which the Director of the Division of Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) reopens claims 

for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational 

Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and vacates 

decisions of the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB). 

2. Authority. Under 20 C.F.R. § 30.320, the Director of 

the DEEOIC has the authority to reopen a claim and vacate a 

FAB decision at any time after the FAB has issued a final 

decision pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 30.316. Also, under 20 

C.F.R. § 30.320(a), the Director may vacate a FAB remand 

order. The Director may reopen a claim and vacate a final 

decision or vacate a FAB remand order, regardless of 

whether a claimant requests such action. 

The Director is granted sole discretion over the process by 

which a claim is reopened and/or a FAB decision is vacated. 

In the exercise of this discretion, the Director has 

delegated certain functions and authority to staff in the 

National Office and District Offices, such as the Branch 

Chief of the Policy Branch, the Unit Chiefs for the Unit of 

Policies, Regulations and Procedures (UPRP), and the 

District Directors (DDs), or Assistant District Directors 

(ADDs) at the discretion of the DD, of the four District 

Offices (DOs). The Director can grant authority to other 

individuals in the program as necessary to streamline the 

reopening process. 

The Director is retaining sole signature authority for 

remand reviews or extremely complex or precedent setting 

reopenings. The DEEOIC Director’s decision regarding 

reopening a claim or vacating a FAB decision is not 

reviewable. 

3. Claimant’s Explicit Request for Reopening. The 

regulations allow a claimant, at any time after the FAB has 

issued the final decision, to file a written request 

seeking reopening of his or her claim for benefits under 

the EEOICPA, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 30.320(b). The 

regulations allow that such a request may be filed: 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 1 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

3. Claimant’s Explicit Request for Reopening. (Continued) 

Provided that the claimant also submits new evidence 

of either covered employment or exposure to a toxic 

substance, or identifies either a change in the PoC 

guidelines, a change in the dose reconstruction 

methods or an addition of a class of employees to the 

Special Exposure Cohort. 

There is no limit as to how many times a claimant may 

request a reopening. Each request will be evaluated for 

any evidence of a new or compelling nature which is 

material to the outcome of the claim and which might 

warrant a reopening. 

a. Timeliness. A claimant may file a request for 

reopening at any time after the FAB has issued a final 

decision. 

b. Initial Review. All correspondence in which a 

claimant explicitly requests that a claim be reopened, 

whether received in a district FAB office or DO, is 

forwarded to the DD with jurisdiction over the case 

file. Requests for reopening received in the National 

Office FAB are not forwarded to the National Office, 

but rather reviewed by the FAB-NO. The DD conducts an 

initial review of the correspondence to determine 

whether the request is accompanied by new evidence, or 

other information as required by regulation, which is 

of a sufficient and material nature and extent to 

warrant a reopening. 

c. New Evidence. If the initial review reveals that 

new evidence has been submitted with the request for 

reopening, the DD determines whether the nature and 

extent of such evidence satisfies the requirements of 

20 C.F.R. § 30.320, and whether it is sufficient to 

warrant reopening. The DD also considers whether, 

based on the totality of the evidence, the nature and 

extent of the new evidence might affect the outcome of 

the claim. If it does, then the DD reopens the case 

by issuing a Director’s Order to vacate the pertinent 

final decision or portion of the final decision. The 

only circumstances in which a DD can reopen a case are 

as follows: 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 2 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

3. Claimant’s Explicit Request for Reopening. (Continued) 

(1) Employment. In instances where the denial 

was based on employment issues: employment 

records that establish previously denied or 

unverified time periods of covered Department of 

Energy, DOE contractor/subcontractor, atomic 

weapons employer, beryllium vendor employment, or 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) 

section 5 employment. 

(2) Survivorship. In instances where the denial 

was based on survivorship issues: records or 

documents that demonstrate a relationship between 

a previously denied survivor and the covered 

employee. Or, cases under Part B where an 

employee claim has received a final decision to 

approve, but the claimant died before payment 

could be made. 

(3) SEM. In instances where an update to the 

Site Exposure Matrices (SEM) or the submission of 

new factual evidence establish a previously 

denied, closed, or unverified toxic substance 

exposure, which is known to be linked to the 

claimed illness(es). Or, in cases where new 

evidence of exposure is received that 

demonstrates a clear link to the claimed 

illness(es). Evidence demonstrating a link 

between exposure and a claimed illness must meet 

the criteria outlined in procedures to be 

eligible for reopening under this bulletin. 

(4) PoC. In instances where the decision to 

deny was based upon a dose reconstruction 

returned from NIOSH with a Probability of 

Causation (PoC) of less than 50%, and the 

claimant has submitted a diagnosis of a new 

cancer which results in a PoC of 50% or greater.

d. Change in Law, Regulations or Policies. If the 

initial review reveals that the claimant has 

identified a change in the law, regulations, or 

policies governing the EEOICP, the DD determines 

whether the nature and extent of such information 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 3 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

3. Claimant’s Explicit Request for Reopening. (Continued) 

satisfies the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 30.320, and 

whether it is sufficient to warrant reopening. 

The DD also considers whether, based on the totality 

of the evidence, the nature and extent of the new 

information might affect the outcome of the claim. If 

it does, then the DD reopens the case by issuing a 

Director’s Order to vacate the pertinent final 

decision or portion of the final decision. 

e. No New Evidence. If the initial review reveals 

that the claimant has submitted no new evidence and 

has not identified any change in the law, regulations 

or policies governing his or her claim, the DD still 

considers the merits of the reopening request and 

determines whether, based on the totality of the 

evidence, the nature and extent of the claimant’s 

request might affect the outcome of the claim. If the 

review results in a determination that the case 

warrants a reopening, the DD proceeds with reopening 

the case by issuing a Director’s Order to vacate the 

pertinent final decision or portion of the final 

decision. 

f. Denial by District Director. If the DD 

determines that the evidence submitted, and/or the 

change in law, regulations, or policies identified by 

the claimant, is insufficient to support a reopening, 

the DD issues a Denial of Request for Reopening based 

on the claimant’s failure to satisfy the evidentiary 

requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 30.320(b). See 

paragraph 8 below for procedures for denying a 

specific request for reopening. 

g. Referral to DEEOIC Director. If the DD cannot 

determine whether the evidence submitted, and/or the 

change in law, regulations, or policies identified by 

the claimant, is sufficient to warrant a reopening, or 

if the request presents complex issues or an issue 

that has not previously been addressed in DEEOIC 

policy guidance, the DD refers the case to National 

Office for review and consideration. The DD prepares 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 4 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

3. Claimant’s Explicit Request for Reopening. (Continued) 

a memorandum to the DEEOIC Director recommending that 

the case be reviewed for possible reopening. 

In the memorandum, the DD outlines the case history 

and the evidence of record and explains why the new 

evidence, or other information, is material to the 

outcome of the claim. The case file is transferred to 

the National Office (NO) for possible reopening. See 

paragraph 7 below for procedures regarding cases sent 

to the DEEOIC Director for review. 

4. Claimant’s Nonspecific Correspondence or Evidence. 

Any nonspecific correspondence or evidence received prior 

to the deadline for a timely request for reconsideration of 

a final decision shall be reviewed as a request for 

reconsideration, pursuant to DEEOIC procedures. 

If correspondence or evidence is received in a FAB office 

or DO after the deadline for a timely request for 

reconsideration of a final decision, and the final decision 

denied the claim to which the correspondence or evidence 

relates, the correspondence or evidence is reviewed for 

probative value to determine whether or not a reopening is 

warranted. 

a. Received in FAB-NO. If such nonspecific 

correspondence or evidence is received in the National 

Office FAB (FAB-NO) after the deadline for a request 

for reconsideration, the case is assigned to a FAB-NO 

Hearing Representative (HR) for evaluation. The HR 

assigned to review the case is to be a HR who has had 

no prior association with the case file. 

The HR evaluates the evidence to determine whether it 

meets the evidentiary requirements set forth in 20 

C.F.R. § 30.320(b). The HR also examines the case 

file, correspondence and evidence with regard to 

procedural errors and/or changes in the law, 

regulations, or policy. 

If the HR determines that a reopening may be 

warranted, he or she transfers the case file to the 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 5 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

4. Claimant’s Nonspecific Correspondence or Evidence. 

(Continued) 

FAB-NO Branch Chief along with a draft memorandum to 

the DEEOIC Director regarding the reopening. 

b. Received in DO or DO FAB. If such nonspecific 

correspondence or evidence is received in a DO or a DO 

FAB after the deadline for a request for 

reconsideration, the correspondence or evidence is 

transferred, along with the case file, to the DD with 

jurisdiction over the case file. The DD reviews the 

evidence to determine whether it meets the evidentiary 

requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 30.320(b), and 

examines the case file, correspondence and evidence 

with regard to procedural errors and/or changes in the 

law, regulations, or policy. If it does, the DD 

reopens the case by issuing a Director’s Order to 

vacate the pertinent final decision or portion of the 

final decision. 

c. Case Referred to the DEEOIC Director. If the DD 

is unsure of whether the evidentiary requirements set 

forth in 20 C.F.R. § 30.320(b) are met, or if some 

other circumstance of a compelling nature is present 

where authority to handle has not been delegated to 

the field, the DD refers the case to National Office 

for review and consideration. The DD prepares a 

memorandum to the DEEOIC Director recommending that 

the Director, or his or her designated representative, 

review the case for possible reopening. 

Since the claimant has not requested a specific 

action, he or she is not notified that the case has 

been sent to the DEEOIC Director for review and 

possible reopening. The DEEOIC Director, or his or 

her designated representative, reviews the materials 

and issues a decision based upon the merits, if and 

only if a reopening is warranted. The Director, or 

his or her designated representative, does not issue a 

decision if a reopening is not warranted, and returns 

the case file to the appropriate DO with a brief 

memorandum outlining his or her rationale. See 

paragraph 7 below for procedures regarding cases sent 

to the DEEOIC Director for review. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 6 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

4. Claimant’s Nonspecific Correspondence or Evidence. 

(Continued) 

d. Case Not Referred to the DEEOIC Director. Should 

the evidentiary requirements not be met, the FAB-NO HR 

or DD simply returns the nonspecific 

correspondence/evidence to the DO for filing in the 

case file. A National Office Policy Analyst drafts a 

brief memorandum to accompany the 

correspondence/evidence indicating that it was 

reviewed and found to be insufficient to warrant any 

further action. No decision denying a reopening will 

be issued in this situation, as the claimant did not 

request any specific action. 

5. DD Communications About a FAB Decision. Under certain 

circumstances the DD may wish to communicate his or her 

concerns about a FAB decision (either a remand order or a 

final decision) to the Director of DEEOIC. In such 

instances, the case file is transferred to the Director of 

DEEOIC for review. The DD prepares a memorandum to the 

Director of DEEOIC outlining his or her concerns and 

requests the Director’s review.

 

6. Review on Motion of Director. The Director of DEEOIC 

has the authority to determine if a claim should be 

reopened by vacating a FAB Final Decision or vacating a FAB 

Remand Order, even in the absence of a request. Such an 

action may occur for administrative reasons, due to 

procedural error, or due to a change in the law, 

regulations, agency policy, or it may occur for any other 

reason at the sole discretion of the Director. If the 

Director initiates such a review, the NO requests the case 

file from the District or FAB Office or delegates the 

authority to reopen through procedural bulletins. 

7. Reopening a Claim and Vacating a FAB Decision. Only 

the Director of DEEOIC has the authority to reopen a claim 

by vacating a FAB Final Decision, except as specifically 

delegated in procedural guidance. The Director may use 

this authority at any time after any type of FAB decision 

is issued, including Final Decisions or Remand Orders. 

(See Exhibit 1). 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 7 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

7. Reopening a Claim and Vacating a FAB Decision. 

(Continued) 

Should the Director, or his or her designated 

representative, vacate a FAB decision, a Director’s Order 

is issued with instructions for the future handling of the 

claim. The case file is then returned to the DO, if 

necessary, or the FAB office responsible for carrying out 

the specified instructions. 

a. Return of Case File to DO. Should the Director, 

or his or her designated representative, determine 

that additional development by the DO and/or a new 

Recommended Decision (RD) are required, the Director’s 

Order contains instructions and the case file is 

returned to the DO with jurisdiction. The new RD is 

subject to the adjudicatory process as outlined in the 

regulations, and the claimant is afforded the right to 

file an objection within 60 days of its issuance. 

(1) DO Disagreement. Should the DO disagree 

with the Director’s Order or any of the 

Director’s findings, such disagreement must be 

channeled through the DD to the NO. The Director 

will entertain only disagreements deemed material 

to the potential outcome of a claim. The 

procedural aspect of the reopening process 

remains solely in the realm of the Director’s 

authority as granted by the regulations. 

b. Return of Case File to FAB. Should the Director, 

or his or her designated representative, determine 

that only a new FAB decision is required, the 

Director’s Order is issued with instructions and the 

case file returned to the appropriate FAB office. The 

new FAB decision is subject to the adjudicatory 

process as outlined in the regulations and may be 

reopened or vacated by the process set out in this 

chapter. 

(1) Instructions to the FAB. Under no 

circumstances will the FAB deviate from the 

instructions contained in a Director’s Order. 

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 8 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

7. Reopening a Claim and Vacating a FAB Decision. 

(Continued) 

The FAB must strictly comply with the Director’s 

instructions. 

(2) FAB Disagreement. Should the FAB disagree 

with the Director’s Order or any of the 

Director’s findings, such disagreement must be 

channeled through the FAB-NO Branch Chief to the 

NO. The Director will entertain only 

disagreements deemed material to the potential 

outcome of a claim. The procedural aspect of the 

reopening process remains solely in the realm of 

the Director’s authority as granted by the 

regulations. 

8. Reopening Multiple Claimant Claims. Given the 

procedure requiring each individual in a multi-claimant 

case record be party to a decision on entitlement benefits, 

situations may arise which require a prior final decision 

be reopened in order for a new recommended decision to be 

issued. This may be the result of new evidence presented 

after a final decision; or the development of new 

circumstances that necessitate reopening, such as the 

identification of a new potentially eligible survivor. In 

some situations, the new evidence may only directly affect 

one claimant; however, if there is any evidence justifying 

the reopening of one claim, all claims associated with the 

case file must be reopened, and a new recommended decision 

is issued to all parties to the claim. 

9. Denying a Specific Request for a Reopening. The 

decision whether or not to reopen a claim is within the 

discretion of the Director. However, as described in 

paragraph 2 above, the Director has delegated authority to 

other individuals within the DEEOIC to deny some reopening 

requests. 

a. Denial of the Reopening Request. If a reopening 

request is unsupported by new evidence, the request is 

denied by the Director or his or her representative to 

whom reopening authority has been delegated as 

described above. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 9 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

9. Denying a Specific Request for a Reopening. 

(Continued) 

b. Issuing the Denial. The Denial of a Request for 

a Reopening is a formal denial of a reopening request 

accompanied by a cover letter to the claimant, and the 

claimant’s authorized representative when required, 

that outlines the deficiencies in the reopening 

request warranting the denial. The Denial of a 

Request for a Reopening is accompanied by a 

Certificate of Service. Exhibit 2 shows a sample 

Denial of a Request for Reopening. 

c. Post-Denial Actions. After a request for a 

reopening has been denied, whether by the Director of 

the DEEOIC or by his or her representative to which 

reopening authority has been delegated, the case file 

will be returned to the appropriate office, if not 

already there, for storage or further action as 

necessary. 

10. Denying a Request to Vacate a FAB Remand Order. As 

noted above, only the Director of DEEOIC may vacate a FAB 

remand order. Requests to vacate FAB remand orders are 

usually generated from within DEEOIC. Should the Director 

agree with the remand order, he or she will deny the 

request to vacate by issuing a memorandum to the requesting 

party that outlines his or her findings. Only where the 

request is generated by the claimant is a formal denial 

issued by the Director. 

11. ECMS Coding. All ECMS codes reflecting reopening 

requests, requests to vacate FAB decisions, and decisions 

granting or denying such requests must be properly entered 

pursuant to DEEOIC procedures.

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 10 

October 2009 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

Susan Spouse

123 Street 

City, ST 12345 

Dear Ms. Spouse: 

I am writing in reference to your claim for survivor benefits under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). 

On July 20, 2007, the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) issued a final decision denying 

your claim for benefits under Part E of the EEOICPA. The FAB found insufficient 

evidence to support a causal connection between your late husband’s accepted 

pulmonary conditions and his death.

The EEOICPA allows for review by the Director of the Division of Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) of decisions issued by the FAB. It is 

within the Director’s discretion to review and reopen such claims as necessary. 

New medical evidence has been submitted in support of your claim that a link exists 

between Mr. Spouse’s accepted pulmonary conditions and his death. Accordingly, the 

July 20, 2007 Part E final decision must be vacated. The attached Director’s Order 

explains the reasons for reopening your Part E claim and instructs the Denver District 

Office to issue a new recommended decision.

Your file is being returned to:

U.S. Department of Labor, DEEOIC 

Denver District Office 

1999 Broadway, Suite 1120 

PO Box 46550 

Denver, CO 80201-6550 

If you have any questions about the Director’s Order, you may contact the Unit for 

Policies, Regulations and Procedures at 202-693-0081. 

Sincerely,

[Name]

[Title]

DEEOIC

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 1 of 5 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

EMPLOYEE: Joe Spouse

CLAIMANT: Susan Spouse

FILE NUMBER: 123-45-6789 

DOCKET NUMBER: 00000000-2007 

 

 

DIRECTOR’S ORDER

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA) regulations state that a final decision, or any other decision issued by 

the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB), may be reopened at any time on motion of 

the Director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation (DEEOIC). It further states that the case may be reopened 

without regard to whether new evidence or information is presented or obtained, 

and that the decision whether or not to reopen a case is solely within the 

discretion of the Director of the DEEOIC.

For the reasons set forth below, the July 20, 2007 Part E final decision is vacated. 

The case is returned to the Denver District Office to proceed as outlined below. 

The acceptance of your Part B claim is unaffected by this Director’s Order. 

BACKGROUND

The evidence of record shows that you filed for benefits under Parts B and E of 

the EEOICPA as the surviving spouse of the employee, Joe Spouse. You claimed 

that your late husband developed chronic silicosis, pulmonary fibrosis, and 

pneumoconiosis as a result of his employment as a uranium worker. 

Joe Spouse’s death certificate, signed by James Doctor, M.D., verifies his date of 

death as April 19, 2003. The immediate cause of death is listed as multi-organ 

failure due to hepatocellular cancer. Other significant conditions contributing to 

his death were listed as colon polyps, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and 

renal cysts. 

A marriage certificate verifies that you were married to the employee on [Date]. 

The employee’s death certificate lists you as his surviving spouse at the time of

his death. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 2 of 5 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

The district office verified that you were awarded benefits as Joe Spouse’s 

surviving beneficiary under Section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation 

Act (RECA). The accepted medical conditions were chronic silicosis, pulmonary 

fibrosis, and pneumoconiosis. 

On October 20, 2006, the District Office issued a recommended decision finding 

you entitled to compensation under Part B of the EEOICPA in the amount of 

$50,000, based on your receipt of the RECA award. On December 11, 2006, the 

FAB issued a final decision affirming the findings of the district office and 

accepted your claim for benefits under Part B. 

With regard to your Part E claim, the district office requested that you submit 

evidence to establish a causal link between the employee’s death due to 

hepatocellular cancer and the approved conditions of chronic silicosis, 

pulmonary fibrosis, and pneumoconiosis. 

When no additional evidence was provided, the District Office issued a 

recommended denial of your Part E claim on May 7, 2007. The district office 

concluded that a connection had not been established between the employee’s 

accepted RECA conditions and his death. On July 20, 2007, the FAB issued a 

final decision affirming the findings of the district office and denied Part E 

benefits. 

By letter dated October 15, 2008, you submitted a request to reopen your Part E 

claim. New medical documents were provided detailing the employee’s medical 

condition from May 2002 through his death. The district office forwarded your 

case file to the Office of the Director for review and consideration of reopening 

your Part E claim.

DISCUSSION

We have carefully reviewed your case file. Sufficient evidence has been 

submitted to warrant reopening of your Part E survivor claim. 

The record now includes a progress note dated January 18, 2003, which indicates 

that the employee had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 

(COPD), for which he used an albuterol inhaler. The note states that the 

employee reported having chronic dyspnea for several months, which became 

worse over the previous month. An April 15, 2003 progress note indicates that 

the employee’s oxygen saturation was maintained at 96% on two liters of 

oxygen. These records suggest that the employee was treated for a pulmonary 

condition in the months prior to his death. 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 3 of 5 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

For the reason that new medical evidence may establish a connection between 

the employee’s accepted pulmonary conditions and his death, the July 20, 2007 

final decision is no longer valid. Additional investigation is warranted to 

evaluate all factors that contributed to the employee’s death. 

CONCLUSION

The July 20, 2007 final decision denying your Part E claim is vacated. The case is 

returned to the Denver District Office for further development. The claim should 

be referred to a District Medical Consultant (DMC) to determine whether or not 

the medical evidence of record is sufficient to establish that the employee’s 

accepted pulmonary conditions were a significant factor in aggravating, 

contributing to, or causing his death. 

Upon completion of all necessary development, a new recommended decision 

will be issued. Should you disagree with the recommended decision, you will be 

afforded the opportunity to raise such objection and request either an oral 

hearing or review of the written record.

Washington, D.C. 

 [Name]

[Title]

DEEOIC

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 4 of 5 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on a copy of the Director’s Order 

was sent by regular mail to the following:

Susan Spouse

123 Street 

City, ST 12345 

 

[Name]

[Title]

DEEOIC 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 1 

October 2009 

Page 5 of 5 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

<Date>

Jane Claimant 

PO Box 12345 

City, State 67890 

Dear Ms. Claimant: 

I am writing in reference to your claim for benefits under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). 

On December 7, 2005, the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) issued a final decision 

to deny your claim for breast cancer under Part B, because the probability of 

causation did not exceed the 50% threshold for compensability. On October 24, 

2006, the FAB issued a final decision to deny your claim for breast cancer under 

Part E, because documentation did not establish that the condition was related to 

exposure to toxic substances. 

The regulations provide that a claimant may file a written request that the 

Director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation (DEEOIC) reopen his/her claim. The decision whether or not to 

reopen a claim under this section is solely within the discretion of the Director. 

On December 9, 2008, you requested reopening of your claim for benefits under 

Parts B and E of the EEOICPA. I have reviewed the objections and the evidence 

on file and find that your case is not in posture for reopening at this time. The 

attached Denial of Reopening Request provides further explanation of why there 

is insufficient basis to warrant reopening. 

Your case file is being returned to:

U.S. Department of Labor, DEEOIC 

Jacksonville District Office

400 West Bay Street, Room 722 

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 1 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

If you have any questions about this Denial of Reopening Request, you may 

contact the Unit of Policies, Regulations and Procedures at 202-693-0081. 

Sincerely, 

Director,

Division of Energy Employees

Occupational Illness Compensation

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 2 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

EMPLOYEE: Jane Claimant

CLAIMANT: Jane Claimant 

FILE NUMBER: XXX-XX-XXXX

DOCKET NUMBERS: XXXXX-2005 

 XXXXXXXX-2006

 

DENIAL OF REOPENING REQUEST

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

(EEOICPA) regulations provide that a claimant may file a written request that 

the Director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation (DEEOIC) reopen his/her claim. The regulations state that in 

order to support the request to reopen, a claimant must submit evidence of either 

covered employment or exposure to a toxic substance, or identify either a change 

in the probability of causation guidelines, a change in the dose reconstruction 

methods or an addition of a class of employees to the Special Exposure Cohort 

(SEC). The decision whether or not to reopen a claim under this section is solely 

within the discretion of the Director. 

For the reasons set forth below, the request to vacate the December 7, 2005 Part B 

and the October 24, 2006 Part E final decisions of the Final Adjudication Branch 

(FAB) is denied. The case is returned to the Jacksonville District Office. 

BACKGROUND

The evidence of record shows that you, Jane Claimant, filed a claim for benefits 

under the EEOICPA. You claimed that you developed breast cancer as a result of

your employment at a covered Department of Energy (DOE) facility. Medical 

records establish a diagnosis of breast cancer. Documentation confirms you were 

a DOE contractor employee at this facility from 1975 to 1997. 

Your case was referred to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health to prepare a radiation dose reconstruction. The DEEOIC used the 

information supplied in the dose reconstruction report to determine whether 

your breast cancer is “at least as likely as not” related to radiation exposure 

during your employment at the Pinellas Plant. In this case, the dose 

reconstruction estimates resulted in a 18.26% probability. For compensability, 

the probability that cancer is work related must be 50% or greater.

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 3 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

On August 22, 2005, the district office recommended denial of your claim for 

benefits under Part B finding that your breast cancer was not “at least as likely as 

not” caused by radiation exposure at a covered DOE facility. On December 7, 

2005, the FAB affirmed the findings of the district office and issued a final 

decision denying your claim. 

The district office undertook development of your claim under Part E to 

determine a link between your claimed illnesses and exposure to a toxic 

substance. As part of this development, the district office conducted a search of 

the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Site Exposure Matrix (SEM), which acts as a 

repository of information related to toxic substances potentially present at a 

covered DOE facility. SEM data also shows whether there is a scientifically 

established relationship between specific toxic substance exposure and disease. 

However, source documents did not establish exposure to a specific toxic 

substance which could have caused, contributed to or aggravated your breast 

cancer. 

In addition to the SEM search, the district office requested that you provide 

additional information in support of your claim under Part E. Specifically, by 

letter dated June 30, 2006, the district office requested information to support a 

link between your claimed conditions and exposure to a toxic substance. No 

further documentation was received. 

On August 15, 2006, the district office recommended denial of your claim for 

breast cancer under Part E finding that the evidence was not sufficient to 

establish that the conditions developed as a result of work related exposure to a 

toxic substance at a covered DOE facility. By final decision dated October 24, 

2006, the FAB affirmed the findings of the district office denying your claim for 

benefits under Part E of the EEOICPA.

By fax received on December 9, 2008, you requested reopening of your claim. 

Due to the nature of the request, your case file was transferred to the Office of the 

Director for review and consideration of reopening your claim under Parts B and 

E of the EEOICPA. 

DISCUSSION

After a careful assessment of your case record, I have concluded there is 

insufficient evidence to warrant reopening your claim. The request for 

reopening cited several technical objections challenging NIOSH’s dose 

reconstruction methodology. Furthermore, it challenged the Part E decision by 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 4 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

presenting a list of toxic substances along with human and non-human toxicity 

excerpts. 

To determine the probability of whether you sustained cancer in the performance 

of duty, the district office referred your case to the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) NIOSH for radiation dose reconstruction. NIOSH 

reported annual dose estimates from the date of initial radiation exposure during 

covered employment, to the date the cancer was first diagnosed. A summary 

and explanation of information and methods applied to produce these dose 

estimates, including your involvement through an interview and review of the 

dose report, are documented in the “NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction 

under EEOICPA.” On July 26, 2005, you signed the OCAS-1, indicating the 

NIOSH Draft Report of Dose Reconstruction had been reviewed and agreeing 

that it identified all of the relevant information provided to NIOSH. The district 

office received the final NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction on August 2, 

2005. 

Methodology used by HHS in arriving at reasonable estimates of radiation doses 

received by an employee is binding on the DEEOIC. However, on May 20, 2009, 

a DEEOIC Health Physicist reviewed the dose reconstruction performed by 

NIOSH and the objections presented. 

In the letter requesting reopening, you raised a number of points of contention 

with regard to your Part B claim. 

These objections to the Part B decision denying your claim are challenges to the 

dose reconstruction methodology which is binding on the DEEOIC. Therefore, 

there is no basis for requiring a rework of the dose reconstruction and as such, 

the Health Physicist found no rationale to support reopening your claim. 

In addition to the Health Physicist review, a DEEOIC Toxicologist reviewed the

objections with regard to your Part E denial. In your request for reopening, you 

presented references pertaining to toxic chemical substances and their potential 

link to breast cancer. The DEEOIC toxicologist reviewed the most recent 

published literature of occupational medicine regarding toxic chemical exposure 

in the workplace and the potential development of adverse health effects. 

Review of the occupational desk references used by occupational health 

physicians and epidemiologists, which were peer reviewed by scientists, and the 

review of individual published studies that have investigated breast cancer, did 

not show a causal link between occupational exposures described in your letter 

and the development of breast cancer. As such, the toxicologist opined that it is 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 5 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

not “at least as likely as not” that exposure to toxic chemical substances at a 

covered DOE facility during a covered time period was a significant factor in 

aggravating, contributing to, or causing the employee’s breast cancer. 

In conclusion, I find there is no new technical evidence provided that requires a 

reopening of your Part B claim. As for Part E, the assessment on your claim was 

conducted appropriately and there is no link between toxic substance exposure 

and the claimed illness. 

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing discussion, I find there is insufficient basis to warrant a 

reopening of the December 7, 2005 Part B and the October 24, 2006 Part E Final 

Decisions of the FAB. However, if you should obtain new and probative 

evidence that establishes a link between toxic substance exposure and your 

claimed conditions of breast cancer, the DEEOIC will reconsider its position. 

Washington, D.C. 

 Director

Division of Energy Employees

Occupational Illness Compensation 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 6 of 7 

Superseded
FEDERAL (EEOICPA) PROCEDURE MANUAL Chapter 2-1900 

Part 2 – Claims Reopening Process 

____________________________________________________________ 

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on a copy of the Director’s Order 

was sent by regular mail to the following:

Jane Claimant 

PO Box 12345 

City, State 67890 

 

Director

Division of Energy Employees

 Occupational Illness Compensation

 

EEOICPA Tr. No. 10-02 Exhibit 2 

October 2009 

Page 7 of 7 

Superseded