 |
On This Page |
 |
|
|
Below are the head notes for the final FAB decisions relating to the topic heading, Payment of Lump-Sum Benefits. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Beryllium sensitivity, Exclusiveness of remedy, Impairment compensation, Maximum amounts payable, Relationship between Parts B and E, Requirements for, and Wage-loss compensation. In order to view a particular decision in its entirety, click on the hyperlink for that decision at the end of the head note.
Beryllium Sensitivity
Exclusiveness of Remedy
- Where employee was awarded compensation under Part B of the Act in the amount of $150,000 for lung cancer, and subsequently filed claims for cancer of the pyriform sinus and colon, he was only entitled to additional medical benefits for cancer of the pyriform sinus and colon. An employee is only entitled to one lump-sum payment of compensation under Part B, regardless of how many occupational illnesses he may sustain. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 2597-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, July 8, 2003).
- Where covered employee was issued compensation under Part B in the amount of $150,000, claimant who later filed claim as surviving spouse of that same covered employee was not also entitled to compensation under Part B the EEOICPA. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 53272-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, March 31, 2004).
Impairment Compensation
- Employee made a claim for permanent impairment based on CBD, bladder cancer and throat cancer. Since he had more than one covered illness, the physician determined the percentage of whole person impairment for each covered illness, and used the combined values chart in the AMA’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment to assign a combined rating of 94% impairment of the whole person based on all three covered illnesses. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 24496-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, March 14, 2006).
- Covered Part E employee was determined to have a minimum impairment rating of 50% due to asbestosis and was awarded $2,500 for each of the 50 percentage points for a total Part E impairment award of $125,000. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10001639-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, October 21, 2005).
- Based on the 5th edition of the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, employee was found to have a Class 2 lung impairment, which has a variable range of from 10% to 25% impairment of the whole person. Given his physical findings, current treatment and severely compromised activities of daily living, employee’s minimum impairment rating was determined to be 25%. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10001749-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, December 14, 2005).
- Employee who received an award under Part B and was found to have a minimum impairment rating of 10% was entitled to receive both impairment compensation of $25,000 and medical benefits under Part E for CBD. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10015379-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, August 23, 2006).
Maximum Amounts Payable
Where survivor received $150,000 under Part B, $125,000 under Part E, and an additional $25,000 under Part E (based on deceased covered Part E employee’s compensable wage-loss due to renal cancer), no determination on the claim for benefits due to bone, lung, and brain cancers was made since claimant had already been awarded the maximum survivor benefits under the Act. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 9813-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, January 25, 2007).
Relationship Between Parts B and E
Requirements for Payment
- Survivor found entitled to lump-sum payment under Part E based on Secretary of Energy’s acceptance of former Part D Physicians Panel determination that employee’s pulmonary fibrosis was due to exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility and medical evidence in the case record that this exposure contributed to the employee’s death. While the causes of death listed on the employee’s death certificate were cardiogenic shock and pneumonia, record included medical report finding that pulmonary fibrosis contributed to the employee’s death. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 2029-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, January 10, 2005).
- The EEOICPA provides benefits based upon the illness of the covered employee; no benefits are payable based upon the illness of the employee’s child allegedly caused by the employee’s exposure to radiation at a covered facility. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 14649-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, October 20, 2004).
- Because the survivor was entitled to the maximum allowable benefit under Part B of a lump-sum payment of $150,000 based upon the employee’s lung and bladder cancers, the FAB issued no determinations regarding other claimed medical conditions of the employee. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 25528-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 30, 2004).
- Where eight surviving children filed for benefits and were determined to be eligible to share an award under Part B, only those children who responded to requests for information on possible tort suits were paid. The remaining 1/8th shares of the award were held in abeyance pending submission of the requested information. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 63743-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, November 21, 2006).
- Where surviving spouse entitled to Part B lump-sum payment died prior to the date that the payment was electronically deposited in her account, the payment was reversed and the final decision awarding benefits to her was vacated. A new final decision was issued awarding benefits to the surviving children. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 72762-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, December 2, 2005).
Wage-loss Compensation
- Surviving spouse of covered Part E employee who died as a result of his covered illness 16 calendar years before his normal Social Security retirement age was entitled to compensation in the increased amount of $150,000. The employee’s wages for each calendar year after his death through the calendar year of normal Social Security retirement age were assumed to be less than or equal to 50% of his average annual wage. Accordingly, the employee had an aggregate period of qualifying wage-loss of not less than 10 calendar years. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 3831-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, August 10, 2005).
| |
|
