Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC)
Payment of Monetary Benefits
Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, Payment of Monetary Benefits. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Beryllium sensitivity, Death of awardee, Exclusiveness of remedy, Forfeiture of entitlement to, Increase over basic survivor benefit amount payable under Part E, Maximum amounts payable, Overpayments, Relationship between Parts B and E, Requirements for, and To survivors living at time of payment. 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 Act provides medical monitoring benefits for beryllium sensitivity, but no monetary payment under Part B. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 58229-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 17, 2004).
- Where evidence established that the employee died after applying for benefits under Part E but before receiving payment, the employee’s spouse who thereafter received the payment was obligated to return it for a redetermination of the correct amount to be paid to the employee’s survivors. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10078623-2009 (Dep’t of Labor, April 9, 2010).
- Where employee was awarded compensation under Part B in the amount of $150,000 for lung cancer, and subsequently filed claims for cancer of the pyriform sinus and colon, he was only entitled to additional medical benefits for those other cancers. An employee is only entitled to one lump-sum payment of compensation under Part B, regardless of how many occupational illnesses he may sustain. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 2597-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, July 8, 2003).
- Where covered employee was issued compensation under Part B in the amount of $150,000, claimant who later filed claim as surviving spouse of that same covered employee was not also entitled to compensation under Part B. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 53272-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, March 31, 2004).
- Claimant who previously pled guilty to making false statements in order to obtain federal workers’ compensation benefits forfeited her entitlement to benefits under EEOICPA and consequently was ineligible for survivor benefits under Part B. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 105159-2010 (Dep’t of Labor, March 19, 2010).
- Surviving spouse of covered Part E employee who died as a result of his covered illness 16 calendar years before his normal Social Security retirement age was entitled to compensation in the increased amount of $150,000. The employee’s wages for each calendar year after his death through the calendar year of normal Social Security retirement age were assumed to be less than or equal to 50% of his average annual wage. Accordingly, the employee had an aggregate period of qualifying wage-loss of not less than 10 calendar years. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 3831-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, August 10, 2005).
- Where the employee died due to covered illnesses at age 54 and his normal retirement age (for purposes of the Social Security Act) was 65, surviving spouse was entitled to basic survivor benefits of $125,000.00 plus an additional $25,000 in survivor benefits under Part E, for total survivor benefits of $150,000.00. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10036412-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, June 13, 2007).
- Where survivor received $150,000 under Part B, $125,000 under Part E, and an additional $25,000 under Part E (based on deceased covered Part E employee’s qualifying calendar years of wage-loss due to renal cancer), no determination on the claim for benefits due to bone, lung, and brain cancers was made since claimant had already been awarded the maximum survivor benefits available under the Act. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 9813-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, January 25, 2007).
- If a covered employee dies after receiving a lump-sum payment of $150,000.00 under Part B, his survivor is not entitled to any further compensation under Part B. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 105471-2009 (Dep’t of Labor, October 8, 2009).
- Where the claimant previously received $200,000.00 in impairment benefits, and was otherwise entitled to wage-loss benefits of $165,000.00, the award of wage-loss benefits must be limited to $50,000.00 due to the $250,000.00 cap for Part E monetary benefits found in 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-12. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10014587-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, August 3, 2007).
- To give the proper effect to both EEOICPA and the regulations, an employee’s potential Part E benefits are capped when the combination of impairment and/or wage-loss benefits reach the statutory maximum of $250,000, and this amount must then be coordinated with the state workers’ compensation benefits that the employee received (if appropriate) to arrive at the net lump-sum Part E benefit amount to be paid to the employee. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10032182-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, March 3, 2008).
- Where employee died after applying for benefits under Part E but before receiving payment, and employee’s spouse thereafter received the payment but failed to return it, no benefits could be paid to the spouse on her subsequently filed survivor claim until the status of any overpayment resulting from her retention of the payment to her husband had been determined. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10078623-2009 (Dep’t of Labor, April 9, 2010).
- Claimant receiving an award under Part B was automatically entitled to a determination under Part E that the DOE contractor employee’s occupational illness was contracted through work-related exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 12914-2002 (Dept. of Labor, February 8, 2005).
- Where the surviving spouse was entitled to compensation under Part B due to the employee’s status as an atomic weapons employee and member of the SEC based on his work for General Atomics, and the employee also had verified employment as a DOE contractor employee at a DOE facility, it is the policy of DEEOIC that the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-4(a) apply such that the spouse is entitled to a determination under Part E claim that the employee’s illness was contracted through exposure to a toxic substance at the DOE facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 41882-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, December 21, 2007).
- Survivor found entitled to lump-sum payment under Part E based on Secretary of Energy’s acceptance of former Part D Physicians Panel determination that employee’s pulmonary fibrosis was due to exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility and medical evidence in the case record that this exposure contributed to the employee’s death. While the causes of death listed on the employee’s death certificate were cardiogenic shock and pneumonia, record included medical report finding that pulmonary fibrosis contributed to the employee’s death. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 2029-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, January 10, 2005).
- Because the survivor was entitled to the maximum allowable benefit under Part B of a lump-sum payment of $150,000 based upon the employee’s lung and bladder cancers, the FAB issued no determinations regarding other claimed medical conditions of the employee. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 25528-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 30, 2004).
- Where eight surviving children filed for benefits and were determined to be eligible to share an award under Part B, only those children who responded to requests for information on possible tort suits were paid their 1/8th shares. The remaining 1/8th shares of the award were held in abeyance pending submission of the requested information. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 63743-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, November 21, 2006).
- Where surviving spouse entitled to Part B lump-sum payment died prior to the date that the payment was electronically deposited in her account, the payment was reversed and the final decision awarding benefits to her was vacated. A new final decision was issued awarding benefits to the surviving children. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 72762-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, December 2, 2005).
- Where three children filed survivor claims under Part E and FAB issued a final decision accepting two of the three claims, but one of the two surviving covered children died before receiving payment, the entire lump-sum payment was made to the sole surviving covered child. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10045849-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, December 31, 2007).