On This Page
Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Compensable illnesses under section 5, Consequential illnesses, Effect of award under section 4, Section 5 claims under Part B, Section 5 claims under Part E, and Survivors. 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.
- Claimant who received an award from DOJ under section 5 of RECA is entitled to additional compensation under Part B of EEOICPA in the amount of $50,000 for pneumoconiosis, the medical condition for which he received an award under RECA. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 22218-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, May 8, 2003).
- An individual may not receive compensation or benefits under Part B of EEOICPA for cancer and also receive compensation under RECA, except in one instance. When a claimant has received an award in the amount of $100,000 under section 5 of RECA, the claimant is also eligible to receive EEOICPA compensation. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 59390-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, January 21, 2005).
- FAB found an eligible surviving spouse established by probative medical evidence that the employee’s toxic exposure to silica dust during his work in a RECA section 5 uranium mine was at least as likely as not a significant factor in aggravating or contributing to the silicosis component of the illness listed on his death certificate as contributing to the death. Where a clinical psychologist opined in his report that the employee’s lung condition resulted in consequential depression which ultimately led to his suicide, FAB found the evidence presented was of sufficient probative value to establish that the employee sustained a consequential illness of depression. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20161223-7334-3 (Dep’t of Labor, January 24, 2017).
- Three of the deceased employee’s five children rejected their 1/5th shares of a section 4 RECA award, and the remaining two children accepted their 1/5th shares. The three children who rejected their 1/5th shares of the RECA award then filed for EEOICPA benefits. The FAB found that the two children who accepted their 1/5th shares of the section 4 RECA award for the employee’s cancer were not eligible to share in the award for the same cancer under EEOICPA. However, since awards to surviving children are paid in equal shares to all living children, the three who filed for EEOICPA benefits were each only entitled to 1/5th shares of the EEOICPA award for the employee’s cancer, not 1/3rd shares. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 15686-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, April 23, 2007).
- Individual who filed a claim under RECA and was approved by DOJ to receive an award in the amount of $75,000 is not precluded from receiving compensation for cancer under EEOICPA where she stated that she had declined to accept the section 4 RECA award and the statement was confirmed by DOJ. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30971-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, March 15, 2004); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 47856-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, July 21, 2005).
- Individual accepting award from DOJ under section 4 of RECA for cancer is not also entitled to EEOICPA benefits for cancer. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 43114-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, September 22, 2003).
- EEOICPA claim under Part B was not in posture for a decision where claimant’s claim for RECA benefits was pending at the DOJ. EEOICPA benefits claimed on the basis of a RECA award can only be paid under Part B if the covered employee or survivor has received an award under section 5 of RECA. The case must be administratively closed and then a new recommended decision issued when a decision has been rendered by DOJ. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 58768-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, January 25, 2005).
- A claimant who has not received a section 5 RECA award for radiogenic cancer may be eligible for benefits under Part E for that cancer if he or she establishes a diagnosis of cancer, that he or she was a civilian RECA section 5 uranium worker who contracted cancer after beginning employment at a RECA section 5 facility, that the cancer was at least as likely as not related to exposure to a toxic substance (including radiation) at a RECA section 5 facility and that it is at least as likely as not that the exposure was related to his or her employment at a RECA section 5 facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10009704-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, February 22, 2010).
- A surviving spouse established by medical evidence that the employee’s exposure to crystalline silicon dioxide in uranium mines was at least as likely as not a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to or causing the silicosis component of the contributory lung condition listed on the employee’s death certificate where the report of a clinical psychologist established that the employee’s lung condition led to his suicide. While the surviving spouse had previously received a RECA section 5 award from DOJ and was also awarded Part B compensation by DEEOIC because she had received that RECA section 5 award, she was nonetheless required to establish that she qualified as a “covered spouse” under Part E in order to be eligible to receive Part E survivor benefits. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20161223-7334-3 (Dep’t of Labor, January 24, 2017).
- Where survivors who received shares of a section 5 RECA award were still living, the FAB could not determine the eligibility of alleged other survivor under the terms of § 7384u(e) until all recipients of the RECA award were deceased. The survivors who received a share of the RECA award were awarded equal shares of the EEOICPA award under § 7384u(a) as “covered uranium employees,” not as survivors of a deceased uranium employee. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 63743-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, November 21, 2006).
- Part E of EEOICPA provides compensation for the eligible survivor of a uranium miner, miller or ore transporter determined to have contracted a covered illness through exposure to a toxic substance at a RECA section 5 mine or mill to the same extent that it applies to a survivor of a DOE contractor employee determined to have contracted a covered illness through exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20161223-7334-3 (Dep’t of Labor, January 24, 2017).