Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC)
|
|||||||||
Final Adjudication Branch
Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, Final Adjudication Branch. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Discretion of, Effect of Director’s determination, Hearings before, Objections to a recommended decision, Reconsideration before, and Time limit for issuance of final decision. To view a particular decision or order in its entirety, click on the hyperlink for that decision or order at the end of the head note.
- The FAB has the discretion to accept a claim previously recommended to be denied by the district office. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 4216-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, April 18, 2005).
- FAB has the discretion to reverse a district office decision recommending denial of a claim and to accept that claim when a new SEC class designation occurs and places the claim in posture for acceptance. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 47148-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, May 16, 2008).
- The FAB may accept a claimed medical condition based upon new evidence if the case is in posture for acceptance of benefits for another condition. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 62339-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, November 18, 2005).
- FAB may exercise discretion to reverse and accept a claim that the district office recommended be denied, based on new evidence of causation presented to FAB and subsequent to a toxicologist’s review. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10016501-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, May 7, 2007).
- The FAB is bound by the provisions of EEOICPA and has no authority to depart from the Act or the implementing regulations regardless of a claimant’s objection to the provisions of the Act. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10017018-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, July 18, 2007).
- FAB has the discretion to award more compensation for impairment benefits than the amount recommended by the district office without first remanding the case. In this case, the district office recommended an award of $12,500.00 based on a DMC’s report. However, following a hearing at which the claimant introduced his own physician’s rating, FAB awarded $42,500.00 in impairment benefits when it found that the rating from the claimant’s physician had greater probative value than the DMC’s rating. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10033309-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, November 9, 2007).
- In issuing a final agency decision on an EEOICPA claim, the FAB is not bound by a historical inaccuracy contained in the recommended decision issued by the district office. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10043931-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, March 10, 2008).
Effect of Director’s determination
- In case where Director of DEEOIC issued a Director’s Order specifying the manner in which the EEOICPA statute and regulations are to be interpreted, FAB was bound to follow the Director’s determination. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10032182-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, March 3, 2008).
- A claimant is allotted 20 days from the date the hearing transcript is sent to him to submit any comments on the transcript to the FAB reviewer. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 9855-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, August 26, 2002).
- A claimant is allotted 30 days after the hearing is held to submit any additional evidence or argument to the FAB reviewer. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 9855-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, August 26, 2002).
- Where claimant submitted a letter of objection but did not specifically request a hearing, a review of the written record was performed. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 43114-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, September 22, 2003).
Objections to a recommended decision
- A claimant who receives a recommended decision to deny the claim from the district office may file objections to that recommended decision with the FAB. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 1704-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, February 10, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30971-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, March 15, 2004); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 43114-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, September 22, 2003).
- A claimant has 60 days from the date the recommended decision is issued to state, in writing, whether he or she objects to any of the recommended findings of facts or conclusions of law contained in such decision. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10568-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, June 16, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 15444-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 19, 2003).
- In reviewing any objections submitted, the FAB will review the written record, any additional evidence or argument submitted by the claimant, and conduct any additional investigation determined to be warranted in the case. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 15444-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 19, 2003).
- If the claimant files objections to all or part of the recommended decision, the FAB reviewer will issue a decision on the claim after either a hearing or a review of the written record, and after completing such further development of the case as he or she may deem necessary. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 34771-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, July 21, 2003); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 43114-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, September 22, 2003).
- The district office recommended an award for a 26% whole-body impairment, based on a DMC’s report that considered the employee’s pulmonary function testing only. The claimant objected to the recommended decision and presented his own medical evaluations that found a 35% whole-body impairment based on the same pulmonary function testing, as well as the employee’s need for oxygen and the fact that his lung conditions affected his activities of daily living. FAB found that the new medical evidence submitted by the claimant was of greater probative value than the DMC’s report, and awarded the claimant an impairment award under Part E based on the higher rating of 35%. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10006507-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, November 25, 2009).
- The district office recommended an award of $47,500.00 in impairment benefits based on a DMC’s report. However, following a hearing at which the employee objected to the recommended decision and introduced his physician’s impairment evaluation, FAB awarded $167,500.00 in impairment benefits when it found that the employee’s physician’s impairment evaluation was of greater probative value than the DMC’s report. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10010178-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, March 25, 2008).
- The district office mailed its recommended decision to the claimant, but the U.S. Postal Service returned it as undeliverable. In order to ensure the claimant’s right to file any objections to the recommended decision, the district office reissued the decision with a new date, mailed it the same day to the correct address, and recalculated the time for objections from the date the reissued decision was mailed. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10033981-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, November 27, 2006).
- A claimant may request reconsideration of a final decision by the FAB; however, a hearing is not available as part of the reconsideration process. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 17520-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 14, 2004).
- FAB granted the claimant’s reconsideration request and remanded his claim to the district office for further development when he submitted new medical evidence of a diagnosis three days after FAB had issued a decision denying his claim based on insufficient evidence of a diagnosis. EEOICPA Order No. 10001762-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, November 10, 2008).
Time limit for issuance of final decision
- Because FAB had not yet issued a final decision, the claimants’ recommended decision automatically became final by operation of 20 C.F.R. § 30.316(c) on the one-year anniversary of FAB’s receipt of objections to the recommended decision. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 37038-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, November 7, 2007).
