Addressee

Address

City, State  Zip

 

Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. Claimant:

 

I am writing in reference to your claim for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA).  On {date} the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) issued its final decision denying your claim for compensation under Part B of the EEOICPA.

 

In December 2006, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a revised report dealing with residual radioactive contamination at facilities covered by the EEOICPA.  In terms of your claim, this report found that {name AWE site} had potential residual contamination in {identify dates per NIOSH’s report}.  Employment at that site during that time, whether by Atomic Weapons Employer or by subsequent owners or operators of the facility, is now covered under this program. 

 

Additionally, NIOSH stated that for those sites for which they found the potential for significant contamination, that such contamination “could have caused or substantially contributed to the cancer of a covered employee with cancer.” 

 

I am attaching a copy of a Director’s Order that I have issued following my review of that decision.  The EEOICPA’s implementing regulations allow for the Director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) to review decisions issued by the FAB.  It is within the Director’s discretion to review and reopen such claims as necessary, regardless of whether new evidence or information is presented or obtained.  In an exercise of the discretion, the Director has delegated authority to each of the four District Directors in the DEEOIC to reopen cases under certain limited circumstances.  The authority granted to the District Director is restricted to those cases affected by the newly released NIOSH report noted above.

 

Therefore, based upon the NIOSH report and in light of the findings of my review, the attached Director’s Order vacates the final decision and reopens your claim for cancer.  Your claim will be readjudicated accordingly and the district office will issue a new recommended decision in full accordance with all current statutory, regulatory and procedural directives.

 

If you have any questions about the Director’s Order, please feel free to call this district office at our toll-free number of (xxx) xxx-xxxx..

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

{Name of District Director}

District Director


 

 

 

 

EMPLOYEE:                                                             XXXXXXX

 

CLAIMANT:                                                             XXXXXXX

 

FILE NUMBER:                                                       XXX-XX-XXXX

 

DOCKET NUMBER:                                               XXXX-XXXX

 

 

 

DIRECTOR’S ORDER

 

Pursuant to the authority granted by 20 C.F.R. § 30.320 and for the reasons set forth below, the {date} final decision of the {location} Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) is hereby vacated.  The case is returned to the district office for further processing and issuance of a new recommended decision.

 

The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) Regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 30.320 state that a final decision, or any other decision issued by the 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.  It is within the Director’s discretion to review and reopen such claims as necessary, regardless of whether new evidence or information is presented or obtained.  In an exercise of the discretion, the Director has delegated authority to each of the four District Directors in the DEEOIC to reopen cases under certain limited circumstances.  The authority granted to the District Director is restricted to those cases affected by the newly released NIOSH report noted above.

Accordingly, I have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and find that the evidence warrants the reopening of your claim.

 

{Provide a concise and accurate synopsis of the claim’s history, particularly with pertinent information regarding employment at an AWE facility during its residual contamination period and how such employment previously affected the claim and its outcome.  If the case involved a prior dose reconstruction, include an explanation of the period of exposure taken into consideration in that process.}

 

In October 2004 the President signed into law an amendment to the EEOICPA mandating that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) update their November 2002 report on all covered facilities where the potential for significant residual contamination existed outside of the covered employment period.  The amendment also established that the identified periods of residual radioactive contamination are now included as covered timeframes for atomic weapons employees under the EEOICPA. 

 

An interim update to NIOSH’s “Report on Residual Radioactive and Beryllium Contamination at Atomic Weapons Employer Facilities and Beryllium Vendor Facilities” had been  issued in June 2004, in which NIOSH in part explained that employment only during a recognized residual contamination period will probably not provide sufficient dose to lead to a grant of EEOICPA benefits. 

 

NIOSH has since issued a December 2006 revision of their report regarding residual contamination at covered facilities.  NIOSH has now stated that for those sites for which they found the potential for significant contamination, such contamination “could have caused or substantially contributed to the cancer of a covered employee with cancer.”  Pertinent to your claim, the NIOSH-designated residual contamination period for {identify AWE facility} is now {identify dates}. 

 

Because your claim falls within the group of claims affected by the new NIOSH report, I find it necessary to vacate the {date} decision and reopen your case in order to make a determination of whether the revised NIOSH report will have an impact on the outcome of your case.  As part of the re-adjudication process, your claim will again be referred to NIOSH so that they may prepare an accurate reconstruction of the amount (dose) of radiation caused by employment as an atomic weapons employee, to include consideration of exposure from the work site’s residual radioactive contamination, in accordance with their most recent report.  The information from the dose reconstruction is used by the Department of Labor in determining whether the claimed cancer was at least as likely as not (i.e., at least a 50% probability) caused by radiation from covered employment, and thus compensable under the EEOICPA. 

 

Following the dose reconstruction by NIOSH, and upon completion of any and all needed development deemed necessary, the district office will issue a new recommended decision.  Should you disagree with that recommended decision you will be afforded the opportunity to raise objections and request either an oral hearing or review of the written record.

 

{city of district office}

 

 

 

{Name of District Director}

District Director


 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

 

I hereby certify that on                           a copy of the Director’s Order was sent by regular mail to the following:

 

 

Addressee

Address

City, State  Zip

 

 

{Name of District Director}

District Director