EEOICPA videos: Hugh Stephens, Esq. continues his description the Dose Reconstruction process of the EEOICPA (video 6)

November 19, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

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)

November 9, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

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).

EEOICPA videos: Hugh Stephens, Esq. discusses the 22 cancers associated with the EEOICPA (video 4)

November 5, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

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.

EEOICPA videos: Hugh Stephens, Esq. explains the SEC process of the EEOICPA (video 3)

November 3, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

Below you will find the third in our series of videos geared toward making the EEOICPA more understandable. In this video, Hugh describes the reasons why the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) process exists within the framework of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), as well as how it works, both ideally and practically.

EEOICPA videos: Description of Part B of the EEOICPA by Hugh Stephens, Esq. (video 2)

October 30, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

Below you will find the second in our series of videos geared toward making the EEOICPA more understandable. In this vdeo, Hugh explains Part B of the EEOICPA and how it applies to both Department of Energy (DOE) facilities and Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) facilities, and how the main issue of concern is whether a worker’s cancer was caused by radiation. He then discusses how the different cancers that a worker might have as a result of their exposure to radiation at these sites are viewed under the EEOICPA.

This video can also be viewed on Youtube by clicking here.

EEOICPA videos: Intro to the EEOICPA (video 1)

October 27, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

In our continuing efforts to make the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) both more accessible and more understandable, we have created a series of short videos in which Hugh Stephens explains the Act itself, along with the various finer points that must be taken into consideration in order to be successfully compensated under the Act.

Above, in the first video of the series,  Hugh introduces the EEOICPA, speaks about the types of facilities that are were involved in the atomic weapons manufacturing process and what kind of benefits workers at those facilities might be eligible for under the EEOICPA. Hugh explains the Act and what it might mean for former workers at facilities that produced atomic weapons for the Manhattan Project and Cold War efforts in unsafe conditions and are now suffering with various forms of cancer. Hugh also explains the process whereby such illnesses may be compensated under the EEOICPA. He then describes the  different types of illness or condition that are addressed by the Act, specifically cancer, chronic beryllium diease and beryllium sensitivity, and silicosis. Finally, he explains how NIOSH (the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) goes about determining the probablity that a worker’s cancer or other condition was caused by their exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals at an atomic weapons manufacturing facility.

This video can also be viewed on Youtube by clicking here.

10 Reasons to Engage EEOICPA Counsel

June 22, 2014 by · Leave a Comment 

Claims Examiners in the Department of Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) within the Office of Workers Compensation (OWCP) of the Department of Labor (DOL) often attempt to discourage claimants from engaging EEOICPA Counsel (an EEOICPA Attorney or an EEOICPA Lawyer) to assist with an EEOICPA claim. I think it is important for Energy Workers and their Survivors (EEOICPA Claimants) to hear the other side of the story. So here is a list of reasons to hire EEOICPA Counsel:

(1) Depending on the claim, it is worth somewhere between $150,000 and $400,000 plus extraordinary medical benefits. This is a relatively significant level of compensation and should not be managed by an amateur.

(2) The Claims Examiner works for the Department of Labor and is not necessarily interested in seeing your claim paid. He or she is actually prevented from advocating for you. If you failed to claim the condition that is most likely to lead to the most compensation in the shortest amount of time, the claims examiner is not encouraged to advise you of that fact. While some claims examiners are extra helpful and some are generally less than helpful, it is important to understand that their job is to adjudicate claims in an efficient manner. They are not paid based on how many claims are paid but are evaluated on the number of claims adjudicated and the timeliness of the adjudication. While there are times when it is in the interest of the claims examiner to help you, there are times when the timely adjudication of the claim is more easily accomplished with a denial.

(3) The Resource Center is paid for by the government. The employees working at the resource center are there to assist with the filing of claims. They are not there to give advice about the best way to file a claim. The role of the Resource Center is not necessarily to make sure your claim is approved. While the individuals who work for the Resource Centers are good people and try to help, like the Claims Examiners, their role is not to make sure you obtain compensation but that your claim is properly filed. The interests of the representatives of the Resource Center and the Claims Examiners are distinct from those of the Workers and their Survivors and there are times when a claim suffers because of something the Resource Center employee or the Claims Examiner has done.

(4) The only goal of EEOICPA counsel is to make sure you receive all the benefits you are entitled to as quickly as possible.

(5) The cost to the Energy Worker or his or her survivors is limited by the EEOICPA statute to 2% of the compensation paid on an initial claim plus 10% of the compensation paid on a claim that has been recommended for denial. This cost of EEOICPA counsel is paid only after the compensation is received by the claimant(s). A Worker or Survivor is not obligated to pay anything unless the compensation is paid and the Worker or Survivor is not obligated to pay anything until the compensation is paid.

(6) EEOICPA Counsel is licensed to practice law by the state bar where that attorney or lawyer practices. Since the EEOICPA is a federal program an attorney or lawyer who is admitted to the bar of any state can be an Authorized Representative for any claimant in the program no matter where that claimant happens to live.

(7) Most lawyers or attorneys have professional liability insurance that protects their clients in the event a mistake is made.

(8) EEOICPA Counsel is capable of assessing the potential that there may be other claims that arise out of the injuries or conditions that have caused you to file an EEOICPA claim. For example, certain workers can file personal injury lawsuits associated with the injury or condition that has caused them to make a claim. Many personal injury lawsuits are pursued in state court and require an attorney licensed in the state to pursue the state claim, but EEOICPA Counsel will be sensitive to these issues. Please make sure to raise this issue with your attorney so that he or she can assess the viability of any claim in addition to your EEOICPA claim.

(9) EEOICPA Counsel will be sensitive: (1) to the possibility of a state workers compensation claim arising out of the same injury or condition that caused you to file your EEOICPA claim, (2) to the interaction of your EEOICPA claim and your personal injury or workers compensation claim, as well as (3) to the impact your claim might have on Social Security Disability (SSD) payments, on Medicare eligibility, and on whether benefits are taxable. A surviving spouse might be struggling with medical bills and estate issues and may even be considering how the compensation would be treated in a bankruptcy.

(10) Last but perhaps most importantly, we know and work with occupational physicians who have experience within the Program. These doctors know how to write the types of reports that are necessary to the acceptance of certain claims. These physicians can also prepare proper Impairment Evaluations using the American Medical Association Guides to Whole Person Impairment (5th Edition). While some of the doctors, performing Impairment Evaluations for Claims Examiners, under contract with the Program, known as Contract Medical Consultants (CMCs), perform proper Impairment Evaluations, we have found that some Impairment Evaluations are poorly prepared and unnecessarily under assess the level of impairment. This has required us in some cases to have a second Impairment Evaluation prepared. In those cases the claimant was required to pay for the second Impairment Evaluation because the Department of Labor only pays for one Impairment Evaluation every two years. Claims Examiners are not generally at liberty to discuss the qualifications of a Contract Medical Consultant (CMC) or provide any information concerning whether that doctor tends to provide favorable or unfavorable impairment ratings or causation opinions and are often unwilling even to identify who that physician will be.

While there are “Professional” advocates assisting EEOICPA claimants, there are benefits to having your claim filed and managed by EEOICPA Counsel. As an attorney with federal litigation experience, I can file a lawsuit in federal court challenging a Final Decision on an EEOICPA claim. So far, I have found that the Program is managed by reasonable people who work hard to compensate claims that should be compensated and have not found it necessary to challenge their work in federal court. But for the reasons described above, we think we more than earn our modest fees and we would welcome your call. Thank you for your time and good luck with your claim. Hugh Stephens (716) 208-3525.

How do I file a REVCA Claim?

July 11, 2012 by · Leave a Comment 

Recently, we have had several people contact our office looking for information about how to file a claim under the Radiation Exposed Veterans Compensation Act. We have contacted the Veterans Administration in order to better understand the process for filing a claim. It is our understanding that there is not a specific REVCA claim form available for you to fill out. Rather, the best way to file a claim is to call the Veterans Administration Radiation Help Line at (800) 827-1000. From there, a representative will take your claim over the phone and mail you a package of documents for filing the claim.

Veterans who seek such payment and health-care must file a claim with the VA alleging that they have an ailment and that it is service-connected. The VA will then assess the claim by examining the individual and his or her medical and military record.

In order to get the necessary military records for filing a claim under REVCA, RECA, or the EEOICPA, you can request files from the U.S. Department of Energy by writing to the following address or contacting them by telephone:

U.S. Department of Energy

Bechtel Nevada

Attn: Dosimetry Research Project, M/S CF401

P.O. Box 98521

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

Phone: (702) 295-3521

Fax: (702) 295-1624

     When you write and/or call the above number, request the “Radiation Exposure History” and The “Privacy Act Form NV-192.” After you receive the forms, fill them out and return them to Bechtel Nevada. In addition, be sure to request all the information they have listed about you, especially the Form For Recording Film Badge Issue And Processing Results, as well as the Form For Recording Film Badge Issue And Processing Results–Equipment. Make sure to tell them which atomic test you were in, your military unit or organization and the date you were exposed to radiation.

Please do not hesitate to contact us with questions or comments about this program.

RECA Downwinder Counties

November 21, 2011 by · 2 Comments 

I was recently asked which counties are covered under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) for downwinder claims. I found this list on the Department of Justice RECA website:

Downwind, Counties and other: in the State of Utah, the counties of Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sevier, Washington, and Wayne; in the State of Nevada, the counties of Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye, White Pine, and that portion of Clark County that consists of townships 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71; and in the State of Arizona, the counties of Apache, Coconino, Gila, Navajo, Yavapai, and that part of Arizona that is north of the Grand Canyon.

See (last accessed November 20, 2011).