Home

Follow on Twitter

Contact Us

Request File Review

VA Disability Claim

Veterans Disability

Case Decisions

Hite v. Shinseki

Harrison v Shinseki

Toole v. Shinseki

Rodrique v Shinseki

Rizzo v Shinseki

Phillips v Shinseki

Reizenstein v Shinseki

Price v. Shinseki

Pomon v. Shinseki

Cushman v. Shinseki

Sharp v. US

Scott v. Peake

Faust v. West

Richard v. West

ADAMS v SHINSEKI 20087162

Skoczen v Shinseki

Comer v. Shinseki

Cole v. Shinseki

Holton v. Shinseki

Tarver v Shinseki

Robinson v Shinseki

Moore 2007-7306

Haas v Peake 2007-7037

Haas v. Peake 05/08/08

Moran v. Peake 2007 7163

Groves v. Peake 2007 7241

Davis v. Shinseki 020209

Gallegos v. Peake 123108

Cox v Nicholson 01/2007

Moore v Shinseki 07-7306

Collins vShinseki 08-7041

BVA 0528564

BVA 0813080

BVA 9815913

Social Security Disability

SSA Disability

SSA Case Decisions

Bowman v Astrue

Maes v Astrue

Carpenter v Astrue

Poppa v. Astrue

Artz v. Barnhart

Anderson v. Astrue

Marshall v. Astrue

Madron v. Astrue 02/11/09

Cruse v. USDHHS

Haddock v Apfel

Passmore v Astrue 8th cca

Moss v Astrue 02/05/09

Bray v. Astrue 02/06/09

Conkle v Astrue 07-6104

Federal Worker's Compensation

OWCP

ECAB Case Decisions

SB v USPS

RA v Dept of Agriculture

BC v USPS

MT v Dept of Army

P.G. vs Dept of Navy

K.H. v USPS

Nelson v IRS 04-2123

VIVENS v USPS 90-1500

HAWKINS v VA 03-1232

Rose v USPS 905 F2d 1257

D.L. v. USPS 08-1873

D.M. v. Dept Army 08-1814

R.C. V USPS 08-11641

Delatat v USAF 2008-3038

RM v Army 97-2145

WS v DOS 08-1797

IH v USPS 08-1352

Kramm v. DOA 05-715

Pygman v DOI 01-1604

J.B. v. USPS 08-1178

F.H. v. DAF 07-1379

M.C. v DOI 08-1581

J.S. v DOL 08-373

E.K. v. DOA 08-421

Tiller v DOA 99-118

R.M. v USPS 08-528

Sligh v USPS 03-1621

M.C. v USPS 05-443

M.M. v DVA 07-2103

K.H. v USPS 08-1053

E.M. v DOD 07-1074

J.M. v USPS 08-1075

OPM/MSPB Claims

FERS Disability

OPM Case Decisions

MAPLES v OPM

REILLY v. OPM

VANIEKAN-RYALS v OPM

POSTELL-PORTER v OPM

Torres v. OPM

Johnston v OPM 04-3260

McLaughlin v OPM 2004

Licausi v. OPM 12/02/03

Townsend v OPM 02-3064

Lensing v OPM 07-3267

Kessler v OPM 08-3068

Forms and Documents

Links

Link To Us

08-2183P: P.G., claiming as personal representativ...

PDF Version

 

 

United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

__________________________________________

 

P.G., claiming as personal representative of the estate of T.G., Appellant

 

and

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND STATIONS, Jacksonville, FL, Employer

__________________________________________

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

 

 

 

 

Docket No. 08-2183

Issued: June 23, 2009

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

Before:

DAVID S. GERSON, Judge

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge

MICHAEL E. GROOM, Alternate Judge

 

 

JURISDICTION

 

On August 5, 2008 appellant filed a timely appeal from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ merit decision dated July 15, 2008. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over the merits of the claim.

ISSUE

 

The issue is whether the employee’s estate may file a posthumous schedule award claim in connection with the employee’s accepted employment-related condition.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On March 1, 2004 the employee, then a 60-year-old aircraft sheet metal mechanic, filed an occupational disease claim alleging that factors of his employment, including exposure to noise from shooting rivets, saws and hammers, caused or contributed to his hearing loss.[1] The record reflects the employee underwent a second opinion evaluation on April 29, 2004 by Dr. Robert Loper, a Board-certified otolaryngologist. An Office medical adviser reviewed the medical record on July 14, 2004. The Office medical adviser calculated that the employee had 12 percent binaural hearing loss based on audiometric findings obtained on behalf of Dr. Loper.

The employee died on December 28, 2007. In a June 12, 2008 telephone memorandum, the Office noted that the employing establishment called to report that the employee had passed away and to inquire about how appellant, the employee’s spouse, could file a claim for the schedule award. It advised that, because a schedule award claim was never filed while the employee was living, appellant could not claim a schedule award. The Office noted that it erred in not issuing an acceptance letter prior to the employee’s death.

On June 12, 2008 the Office accepted that the employee sustained employment-related bilateral hearing loss. It noted that it had neglected to send out the acceptance letter in the employee’s case.

On July 1, 2008 appellant filed a claim for a schedule award (Form CA-7) on the employee’s behalf.

By decision dated July 15, 2008, the Office denied appellant’s claim for schedule award compensation. It found that, since the schedule award claim was not filed during the employee’s lifetime, payment of a schedule award on behalf of the employee could not be made to the estate.

LEGAL PRECEDENT

Section 8109 of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act provides for the payment of compensation under schedule awards unpaid at death to beneficiaries and lists an order of precedence for identifying eligible beneficiaries. The statue provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) If an individual --

(1) has sustained disability compensable under section 8107(a) [providing for schedule awards] of this title;

(2) has filed a valid claim in his lifetime; and

(3) dies from a cause other than the injury before the end of the period specified by the schedule;

“the compensation specified by the schedule that is unpaid at his death, whether or not accrued or due at his death, shall be paid -- [to specified beneficiaries].”[2]

The Board has held the intent of this statutory language is clear, for a beneficiary to be entitled to payment of a schedule award upon death of an injured employee, such claim must have been filed within the employee’s lifetime.[3] If a claim has been filed during the employee’s lifetime and the claim was under development, the employee’s estate may be entitled to schedule award benefits if entitlement is established by the medical evidence.[4]

ANALYSIS

In the present case, the employee filed a claim for compensation on March 1, 2004 and passed away on December 28, 2007. Appellant filed the Form CA-7 for schedule award benefits on July 1, 2008, after the Office accepted the claim on June 12, 2008. The Office found that, since the Form CA-7 was not filed during the employee’s lifetime, appellant was not entitled to payment of a schedule award.

The Office noted that it erred in delaying its acceptance of the employee’s occupational disease claim for hearing loss. The record indicates that the medical evidence on which the acceptance was based was developed in 2004. On appeal, appellant argues that, had the employee been timely notified in 2004 that his claim was accepted, he would have submitted the necessary paperwork to claim a schedule award. While the Office’s delay in adjudicating the hearing loss claim is regrettable, there is no entitlement to a posthumous schedule award if the schedule award claim is not filed during the lifetime of the injured employee.[5] The Board has held that a schedule award claim must be filed by an injured employee or someone acting on his or her behalf during the employee’s lifetime to establish a valid claim for compensation under section 8107.[6] The statutory language of 5 U.S.C. § 8109(a) is clear in providing that the employee must have filed a claim for a schedule award during his lifetime. In turn, the Office’s implementing regulations provide that the right to claim compensation for permanent impairment ceases and does not survive the death of the employee.[7]

It is well established that the Act is a remedial statute and should be broadly and liberally construed in favor of the employee to effectuate its purpose and not in derogation of the employee’s rights.[8] The primary rule of statutory construction, however, is to give effect to legislative intent, and it is well settled that, in arriving at intent, the words in a statute should be
construed according to their common usage.[9] In the instant case, neither the employee nor someone on his behalf filed a schedule award claim before his death on December 28, 2007. As no valid schedule award claim was filed within the employee’s lifetime, a posthumous claim for schedule award compensation may not be filed by the employee’s estate.[10]

CONCLUSION

Appellant, on behalf of the employee’s estate, is not entitled to a posthumous schedule award because neither the employee nor someone on his behalf filed a schedule award claim during his lifetime.

ORDER

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ decision dated July 15, 2008 is affirmed.

Issued: June 23, 2009

Washington, DC

 

 

 

David S. Gerson, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

 

Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

 

 

Michael E. Groom, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board



[1] The employee retired from the employing establishment on January 3, 2007.

[2] 5 U.S.C. § 8109(a). See Carol T. Collins (Harold Turner), 54 ECAB 417 (2003).

[3] Carol T. Collins (Harold Turner), id.

[4] See Cheryl R. Holloway (Wryland R. Holloway), 54 ECAB 443 (2003).

[5] Carol T. Collins (Harold Turner), supra note 2; see Mary Marie Young (David E. Young), 30 ECAB 94 (1978).

[6] Carol T. Collins (Harold Turner), supra note 2.

[7] 20 C.F.R. § 10.105(d). 5 U.S.C. § 8133 provides for compensation in cases of death.

[8] Carol T. Collins (Harold Turner), supra note 2; Stephen R. Lubin, 43 ECAB 564, 569 (1992).

[9] Id. The treatise Sutherland Statutory Construction provides:

“Where administrative powers are granted for the purpose of effectuating broad regulatory programs which are deemed to be essential to the public welfare, interpretive attention may concentrate on the remedial character of the legislation to produce a liberal interpretation that enables the full benefits of the programs to be realized.... The grant of an express power carries with it the authority to exercise all other activities reasonably necessary to carry it into effect, and this has been employed with greater liberality in interpreting statutes granting administrative powers.... Where the meaning of a statutory provision is unclear, in doubt or ambiguous, the construction placed upon it by the administrative agency charged with its administration is entitled to great weight and deference.”

Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Stat. Constr. § 65.03, 394-403 (6th ed. 2001).

[10] Neither the Board nor the Office has the authority to enlarge the terms of the Act as specified in the statute; see Mary C. Anderson-Paine (Robert O. Anderson), 47 ECAB 148, 152 (1995).


Home | Social Security Disability | Federal Worker's Compensation | VA Disability Claim | Contact Us

Copyright © 2008 James R. Linehan P.C.. All rights reserved.

Web Hosting powered by Network Solutions®

Dr. Daniel Hutt DSW, LCSW, BCD