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} your claim was denied, but since that date there have been new developments.  The purpose of this letter is to let you know that I am vacating the {date} denial because these recent developments may affect the outcome of your claim.  This means your claim will be reopened and reviewed and you will receive a new decision. 


The reason for the reopening of your claim is that effective May 30, 2008, a class was designated into the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) pertaining to those who were employed at the Kellex/Pierpont  Facility located in Jersey City, New Jersey for 250 days between January 1, 1965 and December 31, 1972.  Our records indicate you have claimed employment at Kellex/Pierpont during this timeframe and we will therefore re-examine your case to determine if you qualify for benefits under the rules of the new class in the SEC.


The attached Director’s Order explains the reasons why the prior decision is being vacated and your case reopened. Please read this over carefully.  If any of the basic information (such as medical condition) changed since your final decision was issued please contact this office immediately and ask for your assigned claims examiner. 


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






{Name of District Director}

District Director








[Claimant(s) Name



[Claimant(s) Name]



[File Number]



[Insert Docket Number]





On {date} you were issued a final decision denying your claim for benefits under Part B 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 of the Act is hereby vacated and your case reopened under this provision.




{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 on {date}.  It was asserted that {employee and relationship} developed {cancer type} as a result of employment at Kellex/Pierpont in Jersey City, New Jersey.  Medical documentation established the claimed condition.


Under the Act, all cancer cases must be 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) 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.




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.


In order for new classes of employees at a facility to be evaluated for inclusion in the SEC, individuals may submit petitions to NIOSH for review. NIOSH evaluates the petitions and they determine whether a new SEC class will be added.  Effective June 29, 2008, NIOSH added to the SEC a new class of employees who worked at Kellex/Pierpont and was added to the SEC.  The designations by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) state:


Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who worked at the Kellex/Pierpont facility in Jersey City, New Jersey, from January 1, 1943, through December 31, 1953, 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 in the Special Exposure Cohort.





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 at Kellex/Pierpont during the designated years for the new classes in the SEC.}.  This demonstrates that the employee performed work at Kellex/Pierpont for 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 dated {date} 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