Addressee

Address

City, State, Zip

 

Dear

 

I am writing in reference to your claim for benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. 

 

If you are not already aware, employees who worked at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant (Mallinckrodt) in St. Louis, Missouri, for at least 250 work days during the timeframe of January 1, 1958 through December 31, 1958 were added to the Special Exposure Cohort effective February 15, 2009.  Our records indicate you have verified employment at Mallinckrodt during this timeframe.  Therefore, we are in the process of re-examining your case to determine if you qualify for benefits under the rules of this new SEC class. 

 

In order to begin this process, I must first vacate our previous decision(s) and reopen your case.  The attached Director’s Order explains the reason why the prior decision(s) is being vacated and your case reopened.  Please read this Order very carefully.  If any of the basic information has changed since your final decision was issued (such as medical condition(s) or employment dates), please contact this office immediately and ask for your assigned claims examiner.  Your information will be incorporated into your case file and considered in our decision.  Once we have completed our review of your file, a new recommended decision will be issued concerning your eligibility under this SEC designation.   

 

If you have any questions about the Director’s Order, please feel free to call my office, toll free, at:  (xxx) xx-xxxx.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

{Name of District Director}

District Director

 


 

 

 

EMPLOYEE:                                                                         [Employee Name]

 

CLAIMANT:                                                                        [Claimant(s) Name]

 

FILE NUMBER:                                                                   [File Number]

 

DOCKET NUMBER:                                                          [Insert Docket Number]

 

 

DIRECTOR’S ORDER

 

On {date} you were issued a final decision denying your claim for benefits under (Part B/E) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA or the Act).  A final decision may be reopened at any time on motion of the Director of the Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC).  Because of new developments described in this Director’s Order, the {date} Final Decision under (Part B/E) of the Act is hereby vacated and your case reopened under this provision.

 

BACKGROUND

 

{Provide a concise and accurate synopsis of the claim’s history. Some sample paragraphs are provided here, though these should be altered to tailor-fit the specifics of the case.}

 

The evidence of record shows that {claimant name} filed Form EE-2 (Claim for Survivor Benefits under the EEOICPA) under Part B (and/or E, as appropriate) on {date}.  It was asserted that {employee and relationship} developed {cancer type} as a result of employment at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant (Mallinckrodt) in St. Louis, Missouri. Medical documentation established the claimed condition.

 

{Because there have been two previous classes for MCW, there are more possible variations to the paths leading up to this Director’s Order. CE’s are to tailor the language to the specifics of the case. Below is one possible path}

 

Your claim was reviewed on {date} for potential inclusion in previous Mallinckrodt classes which covered employment during 1942 -1957.  However, at that time you were not found to have 250 days in the class. 

 


Because you did not meet the earlier criteria for inclusion in the SEC, your case was referred to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to receive a dose reconstruction.  A dose reconstruction allows the Department of Labor to run a program that provides a number called the probability of causation (PoC).  Under Part B of the Act, a cancer is “at least as likely as not” related to employment at a covered facility if the PoC is 50% or greater.   In your case, the PoC was calculated to be {XX.XX%}

 

As a result, on {date}, the district office issued a recommended decision denying the claim under Part B of the Act, because the PoC was less than 50%.

 

The recommended decision was forwarded to the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) in accordance with our procedures for an independent assessment and issuance of a final decision.  On {date}, the FAB issued a Final Decision, affirming the recommended decision to deny the claim.  {If there is also a claim for Part E- Explain the decision in the next paragraph.}

 

DISCUSSION

 

Under the Act, there is a provision that allows for payment of some cases regardless of a previous PoC.  This provision becomes available when employees are included in a class of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).   To be included as a member in a class of the SEC, the employee must be diagnosed with a specified cancer and meet all the employment requirements of the SEC class.

 

While performing dose reconstructions, there are instances in which NIOSH determines that they are unable to complete the process.  In these instances, NIOSH initiates a petition so that those employees for whom they are unable to complete a dose reconstruction and similarly situated employees be added as a class in the SEC.   Such a petition recently went through the approval process and effective February 15, 2009, a new class of employees who worked at Mallinckrodt Chemical Company, Destrehan Street Plant in 1958 became part of the SEC.  The designation stated:

 

All employees of the DOE, it predecessor agencies, and their contractors or subcontractors who worked in the Uranium Division at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., Destrehan Street Plant in St. Louis, Missouri from January 1, 1958 to December 31, 1958, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the SEC.


CONCLUSION (Note: This paragraph is particularly important)

 

Based on the designation of this new class into the SEC, the district office has reviewed the file and finds there is sufficient evidence to warrant reopening of this claim.  The evidence of record shows that the employee worked {describe evidence that shows the employee worked for at least 250 work days at Mallinckrodt during the designated years for the new class in the SEC}.  This demonstrates that the employee performed work at Mallinckrodt at least 250 work days within the designated time period for the SEC class.  Moreover, the evidence establishes the employee was diagnosed with, {type of cancer} a SEC-specified cancer.

 

Therefore, the above findings indicate potential eligibility as a member of the SEC.  Accordingly, the Final Decision pursuant to Part B and/or Part E is hereby vacated and the case is reopened so that a new recommended decision can be issued.

 

If you disagree with the recommended decision, you will have the opportunity to file an objection and request an oral hearing or a 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