Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, State Workers’ Compensation Benefits. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Coordination with Part E award, Relationship of coordination and the maximum amount payable, and Settlement of claim. 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.

Coordination with Part E award

Relationship of coordination and the maximum amount payable

  • 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).

Settlement of claim

  • A judge issued an order approving a settlement of a state workers’ compensation claim that the employee filed for asbestos-related lung disease, the same covered illness that the FAB later accepted in his Part E claim. Although the judge’s order contained language implying that the settlement was also for a “non-malignant respiratory injury,” the medical evidence of file only established that the claimant had been diagnosed with asbestos-related lung disease. Thus, the amount of the settlement of his state workers’ compensation claim was coordinated with the Part E award because the claimant did not receive state workers’ compensation for an actual non-covered illness in addition to a covered illness. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10013372-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, May 9, 2007).
  • Coordination of Part E award for asbestosis with state workers’ compensation settlement was required where the employee’s workers’ compensation complaint alleged “asbestosis or asbestos-related lung disease, due to, or as a consequence of his exposure to asbestos” and the court order approving the settlement found that the employee had contracted one work-related illness, “asbestos-related lung disease.” The court’s statement that the settlement would relieve the employer of all liability to the employee for “the claimed occupational asbestos-related lung disease and any non-malignant respiratory injury” did not mean that the settlement was for anything other than the employee’s covered illness of asbestosis, which was the only work-related disease established by the medical evidence of record. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10039710-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, November 30, 2007); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10068242-2008 (Dep’t of Labor, July 25, 2008).