We hope that you all have had a wonderful 2014!
A comprehensive outline of 2014’s activity concerning the EEOICPA at Stephens & Stephens can be read here.
We hope it will be informative for you.
In the final video of our series dedicated to keeping the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) understandable and accessible, Hugh continues his explanaion of the claims filing process by discussing some of the proofs and forms required to submit a claim. He also describes how the process generally plays out and how long it should be expected to take, while taking into account various obstacles that may arise along the way.
The tenth video of our EEOICPA series, in which Hugh gives an explanation of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act claims filing process and discusses some of the standard forms involved, can be seen below:
EEOICPA videos: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in a Nutshell (video 9)
In video number nine of our Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) series, Hugh thoroughly recounts the history of the Act. He then explains how certain atomic weapons workers who are suffering from various illnesses such as Silicosis, Chronic Beryllium Disease (CBD), and various cancers may be compensated under the Act after it has been determined that their employment at any of over three hundred Department of Energy (DOE) and Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) sites across the country is at least as likely as not to have caused their illness(es).
In the eighth video of our EEOICPA series below, Hugh discusses the meaning of Survivor Benefits (and claims) under the Act, and explains the distinction between survivor benefits under Part B and Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.
Below, in the seventh video of our EEOICPA series, Hugh sets out to clarify Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. He also discusses the benefits, including medical and lost wage benefits, that an atomic weapons worker might be entitled to by having been exposed to hazardous or toxic substances that caused, contributed to, or aggravated a worker’s current illness(es). He explains how impairment ratings of a workers condition determine compensation and how wages lost through physical inability to work can also be compensated through the EEOICPA.
EEOICPA videos: Hugh Stephens, Esq. continues his description the Dose Reconstruction process of the EEOICPA (video 6)
Video #6 of our ongoing efforts to keep the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) both accessible and understandable sees Hugh continue his clarification of the Dose Reconstruction process.
Here he pays particular attention to the dosimeter badges that atomic weapons workers wore while employed at nuclear bomb making facilities, how the National Institute for Safety and Health (NIOSH) interprets the data from those badges, and how various factors related to this aspect of the Dose Reconstruction process can complicate an EEOICPA claim.
EEOICPA videos: Hugh Stephens, Esq. describes the Dose Reconstruction process of the EEOICPA (video 5)
Below, in the fifth of our series of videos explaining the sometimes tricky minutae of the EEOICPA claims process, Hugh outlines the Dose Reconstruction process used by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to determine the Probability of Causation (POC) in EEOICPA claims, or whether an atomic weapons worker’s illness(es) were at least as likely or not (50% or higher) caused by exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals while making atomic weapons for the Department of Energy (DOE).
Here, in the fourth video of our series dedicated to making the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act (EEOICPA) more accessible, Hugh talks about the 22 specific cancers that may have been caused by a worker’s exposure to radiation and toxic substances during the atomic bomb making process and so therefore are covered under the Act. He also discusses the Act’s distinction between primary and secondary cancers and discusses why certain cancers may or may not be compensated under the Act.