File Number: 14-320904 Injury date 2/25/1993
File Number: A14-104239 Injury date 9/16/1975

Robert F. Farmer
411 Pinewood Dr, N.E.
Bremerton, WA 98310
SSN: xxx-xx-xxxx

June 24, 2004 

Carol A. Larranaga, Senior Claims Examiner
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
PO BOX 8300 - DIST 14, SEATTLE
Seattle/DFEC Central Mail Room
London, KY 40742-8300

Re: MEMORANDUM TO THE DIRECTOR IN THE CASE OF ROBERT FARMER 
FILE # 14-320904 Dates: 03/19/2003 and 05/4/2004

Dear Carol Larranaga 

I submit the enclosed letter from my doctor and his nurse dated June 11, 2004. It includes my doctor's Rationalized Medical Opinion letter dated February16, 2004 that was supposed to have been sent to OWCP prior to March 19, 2004 as additional medical evidence. 

I received your May 4, 2004 letter denying my request for reconsideration. It is a partial review of the merits of my case and ignores most of the content of my March 19, 2004 letter. 

My request in my March 19, 2004 letter for a copy of the file records of A14-104239 Injury date 9/16/1975 has received no response. I still have not received them.

The following statements from the May 4, 2004 decision demonstrate a clear evidence of several errors:

1. Typographical errors

Statement from the May 4, 2004 decision:

"Mr. Farmer identified typographical errors in the previous decision which he asserts made it difficult for him to understand. While the previous decision issued on March 19, 2003 does contained misspelled words it is clear from his discussion in his timely reconsideration request that Mr. Farmer understood the issues of the decision."

My response: 

These typographical errors are more than simple misspellings. The words were not misspelled and had completely different meanings. I knew they were errors because they didn't make sense. How did I know for sure what they meant? I request that these errors be documented and corrected by OWCP as part of a complete Merit Review. As written, the March 19, 2003 letter makes no sense.

2. Newspaper clippings, medical texts and excerpts from publications

Statement from the May 4, 2004 decision: 

Mr. Farmer asserts Dr. Dabe's 01/21/2003 letter referred to studies that were specific that exposure to benzene is causal to leukemia. Mr. Farmer states that there are many scientific medical studies that show exposure to benzene is causal to leukemia and that Dr. Dabe cited only a couple of them to make his medical opinion have probative value.

The previous decision found that Dr. Dabe's 01/21/2003 report cited excerpts from medical studies and provided an opinion based on the studies that indicate that workers exposed to benzene have a greater risk of developing chronic myelogenous leukemia than those not exposed. The office found this without probative value because opinions based on such materials are of general application and not determinative of whether the specific claimed condition is related to the particular employment factor alleged to have caused the condition. 

The Board had held that newspaper clippings, medical texts and excerpts from publications are of no evidentiary value in establishing the necessary causal relationship to establish that a claimed condition is related to an employee's federal employment as such materials are of general application and are not determinative of whether the specific condition claimed is related to the particular employment factors alleged by the employee. Kathleen D. Walker, 42 ECAB (Docket No. 91-0006, issued April 19, 1991).

My response: 

This is what the Kathleen D. Walker, 42 ECAB decision said: 

"At the March 29, 1990 hearing, appellant submitted an article from a periodical. However, the Board has held that newspaper clippings, medical texts and excerpts from publications are of no evidentiary value in establishing the necessary causal relationship to establish that a claimed condition is related to an employee's federal employment as such materials are of general application and are not determinative of whether the specific condition claimed is related to the particular employment factors alleged by the employee. William C. Bush, 40 ECAB 1064 (1989). "

This ECAB decision is misquoted. It doesn't say or infer that a doctor in his medical opinion cannot cite scientific and medical studies. It was, on the contrary, logical for Dr Dabe to cite scientific and medical studies to make his opinion have probative value. These studies have been conducted by our own governmental public health agencies and even reported in the Report on Carcinogens mandated by Section 301 (b) (4) of the Public Health Services Act. 

3. Causal relationship may not be inferred

Statement from the May 4, 2004 decision:

BASIS FOR DECISION:

A person seeking benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act has the burden to establish the basic requirements of their claim. As part of this burden, 20 CFR §10.115(e) provides that "The medical condition for which compensation or medical benefits is claimed is causally related to the claimed injury, disease or death. Neither the fact that the condition manifests itself during a period of Federal employment, nor the belief of the claimant that factors of employment caused or aggravated the condition, is sufficient in itself to establish causal relationship."

The Employees' Compensation Appeals Board has ruled that "The fact that work activities may produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying condition does not raise an inference of causal relationship between the condition and the employment. Causal relationship may not be inferred but must be established by rationalized medical opinion evidence. While the opinion of a physician supporting causal relationship need not be one of absolute medical certainty, neither can such opinion be speculative or equivocal. The opinion should be one of reasonable medical certainty." Norman E. Underwood, 43 ECAB (1992) [Docket No. 91-1720, issued April 28].

My response:

The above is misquoted and taken out of context. These are the exact words:

"An award of compensation may not be based on surmise, conjecture, speculation, or upon appellant's belief that his condition is employment related. The mere fact that a condition develops or progresses during a period of federal employment is in and of itself insufficient to entitle an employee to benefits under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. 3 Additionally, the fact that work activities may produce symptoms revelatory of an underlying condition does not raise an inference of causal relationship between the condition and the employment. 4 Causal relationship may not be inferred but must be established by rationalized medical opinion evidence. Appellant failed to submit such evidence and, therefore, the Office properly denied his claim for compensation. 
In the present case, appellant has alleged that his exposure to aircraft grease, lubricants, cleaning solvents, soaps, oils and gases, during the course of his federal employment, has caused his hives 

2 Some words in this handwritten statement are illegible. 
3 Wilbur D, Starks, 23 ECAB 85 (1971). 
4 Primo T. Salta, 34 ECAB 1033 (1983). "

My note: This ECAB decision (Norman E. Underwood, 43 ECAB (1992) [Docket No. 91-1720, issued April 28) is about allergies and not cancer. The connection is not logical. There is a very large difference between hives and leukemia.

"The issue is whether appellant has met his burden of proof to establish that his hives condition was caused by factors of his federal employment."

Summary of my requests: