E! CLICK HERE!

;
ABOUTUS |
t
‘

GET THE NEW MEXICAN 4 WEEKS FRE

Open house 2¢ hours a day

Santa Fe New Mexican "~~" ee —S home : news : content

By JEFF TOLLEFSON/The New Mexican March 19, 2002

: .
More thar(360 people with ties to Los Alamos National i
Laboratory have filed claims under a federal compensation :

+] program for people who became ill or died working with
radioactive and toxic materials at nuclear-weapons facilities, «
but only a few of those have been paid, according toa report «

by local worker advocates. .

To read the full report online, click **
: “The bottom line is the program is not yet benefiting people in New Mexico,”
: said Ken Silver, a consultant working on the Los Alamos Project on Worker
Safety, an effort by various local organizations to oversee implementation of
the compensation program. Silver spoke during a news conference with Los

Alamos employees and others in Espafiola on Monday.

g

Il workers who qualify are eligible to receive $150,000 plus reimbursements
for medical expenses. Survivors of people who died as a result of their

illnesses are eligible for the $150,000.

i
t
Hi
i
i
i
t
i
1 At Los Alamos, 189 claims involve cancer, 37 relate to problems from

0.are linked to various lung

exposure to beryllium; 27 cite renal disorders; and 9
conditions, according to the report, released by the union representing fab

employees, Citizens for LANL Employee Rights and El Rio Ariba
Environmental Health Association.
‘
bmitted claims under the Hl

Energy Employees lliness Compensation Program, which was signed into law
in the fall of 2000. Those claims include 43 people at Sandia, eight at the Los!
d two at the South Albuquerque Works, @ small ="

Alamos Medical Center an’
: ity that ceased operation in 1987. Federal officials say. four claims

if In all, more the 400 people in New Mexico have su

nuclear facili
have been paid in New ‘Mexico; a fifth has been approved. |
The federal government has paid the most claims - 168 people - at Oak Ridge
~ National Laboratory, one of four facilities that received blanket coverage fora
suite of 21 cancers. Exposed workers who develop any of these cancers.
receive compensation, no questions asked. At these four sites, according to :
Silver,,worker advocates successfully argued that the goverment did not
properly wam employees of the hazards, monitor those hazards or take proper

Ho ta aequant arablems. i

. H



MEDICAL REPORTS FROM THIS
SUBMISSION HAVE BEEN FILED IN
THE CONFIDENTIAL FILES OF THE

NIOSH DOCKET OFFICE



On June 11, 2002, you signed a smoking questionnaire, on which you stated that the employee was a
current cigarette smoker who smoked 10-19 cigarettes per day.. On June 19, 2002, the district office
forwarded the case file and a statement of accepted facts (SOAF) to the National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for a dose reconstruction of the employee’s primary
adenosquamous carcinoma of the right lung. On March 16, 2004, the district office received the
employee’s Social Security Administration employment records which showed additional employment
from at ACF (American Car & Foundry) Industries, Inc., which was a DOE facility,
owned by the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), from Subsequently, the district
office submitted an amended referral summary to NIOSH which included this additional DOE
employment. On January 17, 2006, you signed Form OCAS-1, indicating that you had received the -
NIOSH Draft Report of Dose Reconstruction and agreed that it identified all the relevant information
you provided to NIOSH.

On January 30; 2006, NIOSH provided the district office with a copy of the. dose Reconstruction report
it had provided-to you. Based on the dose estimate for the employee’s primary adenosquamous :
carcinoma of the right lung, the district office claims examiner performed the probability of causation
calculation, using NIOSH-IREP, which i is an interactive software program. The probability of
causation for the employee’s right lung carcinoma cancer was determined to be 43.31%. 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 dated January 17, 2006.

On February 21, 2006, the district office claims examiner reviewed the factual and medical evidence in

” the case record, ‘and issued a recommended decision to deny your claim, since the probability of
causation calculation of 43.31% for the employee’s primary adenosquamous carcinoma of the right
lung, did not meet the “at least as likely as not” (a 50% or gteater probability) threshold required under
the EEOICPA that it was caused by radiation doses incurred while he was employed at the LANL or
ACF Industries, Inc.

‘OBJECTIONS

On March 7, 2006, the FAB received your letter of objection to the recommended which stated the
following:

(1) You disagreed with the “conclusions of the reconstruction findings.”

(2) “Only the lung organ was reviewed, and in my earlier statements, I indicated that the
pancreas could have:been the primary source of the tumor, but it was not located until after
the lung surgery.”

(3) You submitted a copy of a memorandum of recognition, dated June 2, 1982, from Harry
Dreicer, commending your husband for his skill and efficiency during his employment.

Based on a thorough Review of the Written Record, the Final Adjudication Branch makes the
following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On July 31, 2001, you filed a claim under Part B of the EEOICPA, as the surviving spouse
of anemployee of a DOE facility, You claimed the diagnosis of “metastatic oat cell
carcinoma — pancreatic.”



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR .
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION

"oe OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL
ILLNESS COMPENSATION .
FINAL ADJUDICATION BRANCH

EMPLOYEE: ,

CLAIMANT:

FILE NUMBER:

DOCKET NUMBER:

DECISION DATE: May 4, 2006

REVIEW OF THE WRITTEN RECORD
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION

This is the Review of the Written Record and Notice of Final Decision of the Final Adjudication
Branch (FAB) concerning your claim for compensation under Part B‘of the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et. seq.
(EEOICPA or the Act). For the reasons stated below, your claim for survivor benefits is denied. Your
claim under Part E (formerly Part D) of the Act is pending further development.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On July 31, 2001, you filed a Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under Part B of the EEOICPA,
as the surviving spouse of _ an employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) facility.
You claimed the diagnosis of “metastatic oat cell carcinoma — pancreatic.” You submitted a copy of a
certificate of death which listed that the employee-expired on ~ atthe ageof as the
result of respiratory arrest, due to metastatic oat cell carcinoma: You were listed as his surviving
spouse. You submitted a copy of a marriage certificate showing that you and the employee were
married on You submitted a copy of a second marriage certificate which showed that
on _ you were married to . ‘ien, which showed your name change.

You submitted a Form EE-3, Employment History, on which you stated that the employee worked at
the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL); ! a DOE contract facility located in Los Alamos, New
Mexico. You listed his dates ofemploymentas  __ to. / The DOE
confirmed his employment at the LANL from

The employee’s medical record included a copy of a pathology report from SCHS ~ Presbyterian
Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico, which listed the employee’s diagnosis as adenosquamous
carcinoma of the right lung, extending to pleural surface with extensive invasion of endothelial lined
spaces, and positive for metastatic carcinoma. The diagnosis date was © ~

"' According to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Worker Advocacy on the DOE website at
htp/www.eh.doe.gow/advocacy/faclist/showfacility.cfm, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New
Mexico, is a covered DOE facility from 1942-présent.

t



missed doses, as well as how his dose was overestimated for his entire work history. This is a
challenge of NIOSH methodology and cannot be addressed by the FAB.

11. Regarding your second objection, pathology reports state that your husband’s was diagnosed
with “adenosquamous carcirioma of the right lung, extending to pleural surface with extensive
invasion of endothelial lined spaces, and positive for metastatic carcinoma.” Secondary cancers
(cancers resulting from metastases of cancer from a primary site) are not considered primary
cancers. Therefore, NIOSH considered only the primary adenosquamous carcinoma of the right
lung, in the dose reconstruction.

12. Regarding the Memo of Recognition which you submitted with your letter of objection, it does
not contain any new evidence which would change the outcome of the dose reconstruction.

Based on the evidence contained in the case record, the Final Adjudication Branch makes the
following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {
Pursuant to the regulations implementing the EEOICP, a claimant has 60 days from the date of issuance
’ of the recommended decision to raise objections to that decision to the Final Adjudication Branch. 20
C.F.R § 30.310(a). If.an objection is not raised during the 60-day period, the Final Adjudication Branch
will consider any and all objections to the recommended decision waived and issue a final decision
affirming the district office’s recommended decision. 20 C.F.R. § 30.316(a). On March 7, 2006, the
FAB received your letter of objection to the recommended decision, which has-been addressed above.

The dose reconstruction estimates were-performed in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7384n(d) of the
’ EEOICPA and 42 CFR Part 82 § 82.10.

The probability of causation calculation was completed in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7384n(c)(3) of
EEOICPA and 20 CFR 30.213, which references Subpart E of 42 C.F.R. Part 81. -

The probability of causation based the employee’s primary adenosquamous carcinoma of the right lung,
was determined to be 43.31%, therefore it is not “at least as likely as not” (a 50% or greater probability) |
that it was caused by his employment at the LANL or ACF Industries, Inc:, within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. § 7384n(b) of the Act.

The employee does not meet the criteria of a “covered employee with cancer,” specifically, that his
primary adenosquamous carcinoma of the right lung, was at least 50% as likely as not related to his
employment. 42 U.S.C. §§ 73841(1)(B) and 73841(9)(B)Gi)QD.

You are not entitled to compensation, as outlined under 42 U.S.C. § 7384s of the Act.

Additionally, metastases are secondary cancers (cancers resulting from metastases of cancer from a i
primary site) and are not considered primary cancers. Therefore, NIOSH considered only the primary |
cancer site of the employee’s adenosquamous carcinoma of the right lung in the dose reconstruction. i
Denver ne ‘
inte e4 .
Sandra Vicens-Pecenka

Hearing Representative

jd



09-97-O6A10:5E REov

September 1, 2006

Robert A. Taft Laboratories Rua fr pe tt (02%)

MS-C34__.
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

lam writing in regards to the article on the Ra-La Special Exposure

Cohort, in the Los Alamos Monitor, dated Sunday, August 27, 2007. —

I received my.claim denial dated May 4, 2006 in the mail!
1 filed a reconsideration of the claim on May 17, 2006, but have not
received any information on this-claim! .

I am enclosing information I gave on this claim, I have felt from the
bottom of my heart my husband had Pancreatic Caricer, the Mother

Cancer. For, 14 months he had tests, x-rays and suffered,
, wher he had a chest x-ray and a mass was
discovered on his lung, by then he had metastasis of the lung!
= : were his medical doctors.
Ihave in my possession all-of his x-rays from the Los Alamos

Medical Center.

I don’t have any faith in the dose reconstruction, how can this be —
Reconstructed without some idea of the work he performed in the
25 years of service! He worked in all areas of the Laboratory, and
had been to Jackass Flats in Nevada, I was not privey to the work or
the chemicals, but do know he worked with Beryllium, Plutonium,
Uranium, Fiberglass, Lead.and other solvent chemicals, which he

inhaled and breathed.

After, reading the articles in the news about the compensation of the



wa

10.

. On February 3, 2006, the district office issued a recommended decision to deny your claim since

. The DOE confirmed the employee’s work history at the LANL from

~~. Social Security Administration employment records confirmed ,
additional employment from at ACF (American Car & Foundry) Industries, ,
Inc., which was a DOE facility, owned by the AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), from

~ the employee was diagnosed with adenosquamous carcinoma of the
right lung, extending to pleural surface with extensive invasion of endothelial lined spaces,
and positive for metastatic carcinoma.

. The employee expired on . ‘,atthe age of —_as the result of respiratory

arrest, due to metastatic oat cell carcinoma.

. You established that you were the employee’s eligible surviving spouse. You submitted a

copy of a second marriage certificate which substantiated the change in your last name
from :

. On February 21, 2006, the district office claims recommended denial of your claim, since the

probability of causation calculation of 43.31% for the employee’s primary adenosquamous
carcinoma of the right lung, did not meet the “at least as likely as not” (a 50% or greater
probability) threshold required under the EEOICPA that it was caused by radiation doses
incurred while he was employed at the LANL or ACF Industries, Inc.

. NIOSH reported annual dose estimates for the employee’s primary adenosquamous

carcinoma of the right lung from the date of initial radiation exposure at the LANL in _to
the date of his right lung cancer diagnosis. 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, is documented in the NIOSH Report of Dose
Reconstruction dated January 17, 2006. _

. Based on the dose reconstruction performed by NIOSH, the probability of causation calculation

was completed by a district office claims examiner and was independently calculated and
verified by a Final Adjudication Branch claim examiner. The probability of causation values
were determined using the upper 99% credibility limit, which helps minimize the possibility of
denying claims to employees with cancers likely to have been caused by occupational radiation
exposures. It was shown that the probability of causation calculation of 43.31% verified that the
employee’s primary adenosquamous carcinoma of the right lung, did not meet the “at least as
likely as not” (a 50% or greater probability) threshold required under the EEOICPA that it was
caused by radiation doses incurred while he was employed at the LANL or ACF Industries, Inc.

the probably of causation calculation of 43.31% for the employee’s primary adenosquamous
carcinoma of the right lung did not meet the “at least as likely as not” (a 50% or greater
probability) threshold required under the EEOICPA that it was caused by radiation doses
incurred while he was employed at the LANL or ACF Industries, Inc. Your claim -was :
transferred to the FAB for review and issuance of a final decision.

Regarding your first objection, the NIOSH dose reconstruction offers the most in depth
explanation of how your husband’s radiation exposure was reconstructed and calculated for



It was not diagnosed until after the lung surgery, when he
constantly had complained of his stomach hurting! The Ct Scan
of 3/10/86 was read by , he indicated the scan

was normal, the Radiologist at Presbyterian hospital

disagreed with this decision, It is a Cancer that is hard to detect!

Ialso note: - - _MD., noted on his report
_' demise on of this disease!. At this time the
MD was dealing with the Pancreatic Cancer! _

I am asking for reconsideration of this claim!

Sincerely, .

Phone.

Page 2.



- May 17, 2006

Department of Labor _
District Office, DEEOIC
1999 Broadway, Suite 1120
P. O. Box 46550 ,
Denver, CO 80201

I firmly disagree with the decision of the Review Board.
I would like to request_a reconsideration of this claim.

- Claimant:
File Number:.”
Docket Number:

Enclosures: 1. Dose Construction
2. History and Physical of (6-12-86)
3. Results of CT scan 2 - 27 - 86 (- 7 oo
4. Presbyterian Hospital Report (5-15-86)
5. Report of ‘
7-18-86 through 1- 12- 87
6. Newspaper clippings on Compensation (2)
7. Article on Pancreatic Cancer

“J hope each of these enclosures are thoroughly read!

I have felt all along that had suffered from Pancreatic Cancer,
the Mother Cancer!

Page 1.

)



Los Alamos employees and how most have received denials,
and only 31 workers have received compensation, I feel the
employees have the right to re-file their claims!

Iam enclosing the information I have sent regarding my claim, I
hope reconsideration will be given, the dose reconstruction
disregarded!

I feel my husband gave 25 years of service, the same as the military,
and should be rewarded accordingly.

I don’t think his smoking should even be considered, did the spouses
of the Twin Towers say whether their deceased smoked?

They received compensation immediately!

I hope you will give this your attention!

Sincerely, oo. . -