File Number: 14-320904
reconmoddenied-D-RECO
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMP PROGRAMS
PO BOX 8300 DISTRICT 14 SEA
LONDON, KY 40742-8300
Phone: (206) 398-8100
March 7, 2007
Date of Injury: 02/25/1993
Employee: ROBERT F. FARMER
ROBERT F FARMER
411 PINEWOOD DR NE
BREMERTON, WA 98310
Dear Mr. FARMER:
Enclosed is a decision on your request for reconsideration, explaining the basis for the determination.
We have not modified our prior decision. However, we have evaluated the evidence you submitted and have reviewed the merits of your case.
If you disagree with this decision read and follow the enclosed instructions carefully.
Sincerely,
Art Baniqued
Senior Claims Examiner
Enclosure(s): Appeal Rights, Notice of Decision
NAVY
CMDR-IN-CHIEF, PAC FLEET/SHIP YARDS
PUGET SOUND SHPYD-HRO CODE 1116.1
1400 FARRAGUT AVENUE
BREMERTON, WA 98314
File Number: 140320904
D-reco
NOTICE OF DECISION:
CLAIM NUMBER: 140320904
CLAIMANT: ROBERT FARMER
03/07/07
ISSUE: The issue for determination is whether there is sufficient evidence submitted with the request for reconsideration to warrant review and/or modification of the prior decision dated 04/12/06.
BACKGROUND: The history of the claim has been well documented in previous decisions and will not be repeated in its entirety.
By letter decision dated 03/19/03, the Office denied modification of the earlier decision. The claimant disagreed with the decision and requested reconsideration on
03/19/04.
The Office declined the request for reconsideration on 05/04/04 for the reason that the reconsideration request was untimely and the claimant failed to demonstrate that the Office made an error in its decision. The claimant disagreed with the Office's decision and requested the Employees Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) for review of his case on 05/04/05.
On 02/02/06, ECAB remanded his case back to the Office as it found the reconsideration request was timely filed and directed the Office to perform standard review of the case.
On 04/12/06, following review of the case on its merits, the Office found that the modification of the 03/19/03 decision was disallowed because the claimant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence establishing the medical connection between the accepted exposure and the diagnosed condition.
The claimant disagreed with the decision and requested a hearing from the Branch of Hearings and Review. The Hearings and Review denied his request on 05/18/06 for the reason that the issue in his case can equally well be addressed by requesting reconsideration from the District Office and submit evidence not previously considered.
DISCUSSION:
On 01/02/07, the claimant submitted his request for reconsideration to the Office with the following documents: a letter from
Dr. Dabe dated 02/16/04 containing his medical opinion; Commanding Officer's letter to the employing agency date
10/14/93; statement from the claimant listing the carcinogens that the claimant may have been exposed to; and an inquiry letter from the Office of Congressman Norm Dicks.
(Note: Non-board certificated Industrial Hygienists
without university credentials authored the 10/14/93
records provided by the shipyard Therefore, it has no probative value.
Under 20 CFR
10.138(b)(1), a claimant may obtain review of the merits of the claim by showing the Office erroneously applied or interpreted a point of law, by advancing a point of law or fact not previously considered by the office, or by submitting relevant and pertinent evidence not previously considered by the office. Because claimant submitted new medical evidence, the claim was opened for merit review.
The Commanding Officers' letter to the agency contained estimate of the degree and frequency of exposure to air contaminants and physical agents which could have been present in the claimant's work environment. However, this letter did not contain any well reasoned opinion from a physician as to how these contaminants and physical agents is medically connected to the claimant's claimed condition. Therefore, it has no probative value.
The letter from Dr. Dabe dated 02/16/04 has already been considered in the previous decision. But I would like to reiterate Dr. Dabe's statement that the claimant's condition was aggravated or precipitated by exposure to different agents provided by the claimant. However, Dr. Dabe did not explain the medical connection of these agents to the claimant's condition. Although he noted that these agents are recognized by many governmental and private scientific studies to cause cancer, he did not provide clear and definitive findings and rationale as to how these studies specifically applies to the claimant's condition. His opinion is not of reasonable certainty and has little provative value.
(Note: provative is not in the dictionary)
Rationalized medical opinion evidence is medical evidence that includes a physician's rationalized opinion on whether there is a causal relationship between the claimant's diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor of employment. The opinion of the physician must be based on a complete factual and medical background of the claimant, must be one of reasonable medical certainty and must be supported by medical rationale explaining the nature of the relationship between the diagnosed condition and the established incident or factor of employment.
Betty J. Smith, 54 ECAB_(Docket No.
02-149, issued October 29, 2002) (Note:
This ECAB is a about a traumatic injury and not relevant to occupational
illnesses.)
The list of carcinogens that the claimant's submitted was not supported with medical opinion from a physician so, it does not establish causal relationship between his condition and his work factors.
CONCLUSION:
After reviewing the case on its merits, I find that the claimant has not submitted sufficient evidence to warrant modification of the
04/12/06 decision as the file does not establish that the claimant's work factors is causally related to his diagnosed condition.
Art Baniqued
Senior Claims Examiner
************************
Click here for word version
