U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS
DIVISION OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL
   ILLNESS COMPENSATION
FINAL ADJUDICATION BRANCH



EMPLOYEE:                                                             [Name Deleted]

 

CLAIMANTS:                                                           [Name Deleted]

                                                                                    [Name Deleted]

 

FILE NUMBER:                                                       [Number Deleted]

 

DOCKET NUMBERS:                                             57599-2005

57600-2005

 

DECISION DATE:                                                    January 4, 2005

 

 

NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION

 

This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch concerning your claims 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 set forth below, your claims are accepted.

 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

 

On May 17, 2004, [Claimant 1] and [Claimant 2] each filed a Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under the EEOICPA.  Your claims were based, in part, on the assertion that your father was an employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor at a DOE facility.  You stated on the Forms EE-2 that you were filing for the employee’s acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AML).  The evidence shows that all medical records have been destroyed; therefore, per office procedure, the employee’s death certificate is sufficient to establish that he was diagnosed with AML.

 

On the Form EE-3, Employment History, you stated the employee was employed by A. S. Shulman Electric, a subcontractor of C. P. Schwartz, at the gaseous diffusion plant (GDP) in Paducah, Kentucky, for the period of June 1951 to 1955.  Department of Energy records, Social Security records, and employment affidavits confirm employment by C. P. Schwartz and F. H. McGraw from at least October 1, 1952 to December 31, 1953. 

 

On November 17, 2004, the Jacksonville district office issued a decision recommending that you, as eligible survivors of the employee, are entitled to compensation in the amount of $75,000 each, for the employee’s AML.  You each submitted written notification that you waive any and all objections to the recommended decision. 

 

In order for the employee to qualify as a member of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under § 7384l(14)(A) of the Act, the following requirements must be satisfied:

(A)     The employee was so employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days before February 1, 1992, at a gaseous diffusion plant located in Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, or Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and, during such employment - -

(i)                  was monitored through the use of dosimetry badges for exposure at the plant of the external parts of employee’s body to radiation; or

(ii)                worked on a job that had exposures comparable to a job that is or was monitored through the use of dosimetry badges.  42 U.S.C. § 7384l(14)(A).

 

Department of Energy records, Social Security records, and employment affidavits confirm employment for at least 250 days from at least October 1, 1952 to December 31, 1953 at the Paducah GDP.  You indicated on the Form EE-3 (Employment History) that you did not know whether your father wore a dosimetry badge.  According to the Department of Energy sponsored report entitled Exposure Assessment Project at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, released in December 2000, Section 4.2.1.1 External Dosimeters states:   “Prior to 1961, select groups of employees considered to have the potential for radiation exposures were issued film badges.  After [July 1] 1960, all employees were issued two combination security/film badges.”  Because the period of your father’s employment fell within the time that some or all employees at the Paducah GDP were issued dosimetry badges, I find that the employee’s employment at the Paducah GDP satisfies the requirements under § 7384l(14)(A) of the Act.  42 U.S.C. §7384l(14)(A).

 

FINDINGS OF FACT

 

1.  On May 17, 2004, [Claimant 1] and [Claimant 2] each filed a Form EE-2, Claim for Survivor Benefits under the EEOICPA.  

 

2.  The evidence is sufficient to establish that the employee was diagnosed with acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AML).

 

3.  Acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AML) is a specified cancer under Part B of the Act and the implementing regulations.  42 U.S.C. § 7384l(17)(A), 20 C.F.R. § 30.5(dd)(1).

 

4.  The employee was employed at the gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, Kentucky for the period of at least October 1, 1952 to December 31, 1953.  The employee is a covered employee as defined in the Act.  42 U.S.C. § 7384l(1).

 

5.  The employee is a member of the Special Exposure Cohort, as defined in the Act.  42 U.S.C. § 7384l(14)(A).

 

6.  In proof of survivorship, you submitted birth certificates, documentation of name changes, and the death certificates of the employee and his spouse.   Therefore, you have established that you are survivors as defined by the implementing regulations.  20 C.F.R. § 30.5(ee).

 

7.  The district office issued the recommended decision on November 17, 2004.

 

8.  You each submitted written notification that you waive any and all objections to the recommended decision. 

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 

I have reviewed the record on this claim and the recommended decision issued by the district office on November 17, 2004.  I find that the employee is a member of the Special Exposure Cohort, as that term is defined in the Act, and that the employee’s acute myelomonocytic leukemia (AML) is a specified cancer under Part B of the Act and the implementing regulations.  42 U.S.C. §§ 7384l(14)(A), 7384l(17)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 30.5(dd)(1).

 

I find that the recommended decision is in accordance with the facts and the law in this case, and that you are each entitled to one-half of the maximum $150,000 award, in the amount of $75,000 each, pursuant to Part B of the EEOICPA.  42 U.S.C. §§ 7384s(a), 7384s(e)(1)(B). 

 

Jacksonville, FL

 

 

 

Mark Stewart

Hearing Representative