The EEOICPA was passed in 2000. It provides compensation to workers who became ill as a result of their employment manufacturing nuclear weapons in the USA, as well as their spouses, children, and grandchildren.

Are you eligible for compensation? If you or a family member worked at any of the Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) and Department of Energy (DOE) Covered Facilities listed on this website and became ill, you may be entitled to compensation of up to $400K plus medical benefits. Call EEOICPA Counsel Hugh Stephens at 1-855-548-4494 or fill out our free claim evaluation, We can help even if you’ve already filed, even if your claim was denied!

In these pages, we present general definitions of Illnesses covered by the Act, followed by specific references to the disease from the EEOICPA Procedure Manual, Bulletins, and Final Decisions of the Final Adjudication Board to clarify how these maldies might relate to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act.

Renal Cancer

 
Below we have collected specific references to bone cancer from the DEEOIC Procedure Manual, Bulletins, and Final Decisions, to illustrate how this illness is viewed under the EEOICPA.

Note: Page numbers below refer to the documents available on our DEEOIC Resources page.

A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia:

Renal cell carcinoma

Renal cancer; Kidney cancer; Hypernephroma; Adenocarcinoma of renal cells; Cancer – kidney

Renal cell carcinoma is a type of kidney cancer that starts in the lining of very small tubes (tubules) in the kidney.

Procedure Manual

Page 48

uu. Specified Cancers are listed in Section 30.5(ff) of the regulations. An employee must be diagnosed with one of these specific types of cancer to be considered eligible for benefits as a member of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). The list of specified cancers, which is derived from section 4(b)(2) of the RECA Amendments of 2000, is as follows:

(3) Primary or secondary renal cancers;

Page 175

7. Specified Cancers: In addition to satisfying the employment criteria under a SEC class, the employee must also have been diagnosed with a specified cancer to be eligible for compensation under the SEC provision. The following are specified cancers in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 30.5(ff):

       d. Primary or Secondary Renal Cancers.

Page 292

2. RECA Background.

        b. Section 5 of RECA.

                 (4) Covered Illnesses. Primary lung cancer, renal cancer, other chronic renal diseases including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury, and the following nonmalignant respiratory illnesses: pulmonary fibrosis, fibrosis of the lung, cor pulmonale related to pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis and pneumoconiosis.

Bulletins

Page 694

Summary of Revisions to Final Rule 20 CFR Part 30

Section 30.5(dd)

Addition of renal cancers to the list of specified cancers made by section 2403(a) of Public Law 107-20.

Page 826

The second issue addresses the length of time following first exposure to radiation at a GDP until the diagnosis of the employees’ specified cancer. EEOICPA Section 7384l(17) defines specified cancers for inclusion in the SEC. The Act also states that certain onset time requirements need to be met in order to qualify for SEC inclusion. For most cancers, an eligible employee must have developed a specified cancer 5 years after first exposure. In the case of leukemia, an onset time of more than two years after initial occupational exposure is required. There are no delay of onset periods for primary or secondary lung, bone, and renal cancers.

4. A number of specified cancers are listed in the Act. For these specified cancers, the CE must determine that the date of diagnosis is at least 5 years after first exposure at a GDP (per EEOICPA Section 7384l(17)). There are no delay of onsets for primary or secondary lung, bone, and renal cancers.

Page 863

Sample Recommended Decision

Statement of the Case

On September 30, 2001, Peter James filed a claim for benefits under EEOICPA seeking a $150,000 award of compensation.

The Department of Energy confirmed that Mr. James was a DOE employee at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee from 1970-1990. The Department of Energy confirmed that he was monitored through the use of a dosimetry badge for exposure to radiation.

Mr. James submitted a medical report from Dr. Chou dated November 10, 2000 indicating that he has been receiving treatment for cancers of the kidney and lung. Mr. James also submitted a pathology report dated October 21, 1999, which showed that he has a malignant tumor in his right kidney that was most consistent with primary renal cancer. A second pathology report dated July 6, 2000 showed that he was also diagnosed with primary lung cancer.

A copy of the case file along with a NIOSH Referral Summary was forwarded to NIOSH for dose reconstruction in December 2001. On May 30, 2002, the Office received the “NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under EEOICPA,” dated May 28, 2002, which provided the estimates of dose to the primary kidney and primary lung sites. NIOSH estimated annual doses totaling 15 rem for the kidney and 20 rem for the lung. Based on these dose estimates, the calculation of probability of causation was completed using NIOSH-IREP, which is an interactive software program. The probability of causation for the two primary cancers was determined to be 55%.

Findings of Fact

Peter James filed a claim for benefits on September 20, 2001.

Mr. James was a covered DOE employee at the Y-12 Plant located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee from 1970 through 1990.

Mr. James was monitored through the use of a dosimetry badge for exposure to radiation during his employment at the Y-12 Plant.

On October 21, 1999, Mr. James was diagnosed with primary renal cancer.

On July 6, 2000, Mr. James was diagnosed with primary lung cancer. These diagnoses were made after Mr. James began his employment with the Department of Energy.

NIOSH reported annual dose estimates for the kidney and lung from the date of initial radiation exposure at Y-12 to the date of cancer diagnosis. A summary and explanation of information and methods applied to produce these dose estimates, including Mr. James’ involvement through an interview and review of the dose report, are documented in the “NIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under EEOICPA,” dated May 28, 2002.

Based on the dose reconstruction performed by NIOSH, the probability of causation (the likelihood that a cancer was caused by radiation exposure incurred by the employee while working at Y-12) was calculated for the two primary cancers. The probability of causation values were determined using the upper 99 percent credibility limit, which helps minimize the possibility of denying claims to employees with cancers likely to have been caused by occupational radiation exposures. It was shown that the Mr. James’ renal and lung cancers were “at least as likely as not” (a 50% or greater probability) caused by radiation doses incurred while employed at the Y-12 Plant.

Conclusions of Law

The dose reconstruction estimates were performed in accordance with 7384n(d) of EEOICPA and 42 CFR Part 82 §82.26. The Probability of Causation was completed in accordance with 7384n(c) (3) of EEOICPA and Subpart E of 42 CFR Part 81. Further, the calculation based on two primary cancer sites was completed in accordance with 42 CFR Part 81 §81.25. The claimant is entitled to compensation in the amount of $150,000 pursuant to 7384s of EEOICPA. He is also entitled to medical benefits for primary renal cancer and primary lung cancer.

Final Decisions

Page 697

EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 15444-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, August 19, 2003)

REVIEW OF THE WRITTEN RECORD NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION

This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch concerning your claims for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA or the Act). On July 22, 2003, [Claimant 3] wrote to the FAB and filed objections to the June 26, 2003 recommended decision. On July 26, 2003, [Claimant 2] submitted additional evidence in support of his claim for benefits under the EEOICPA. The objections and additional evidence have been considered by means of a review of the written record.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On November 21, 2001, [Claimant 1], filed a claim for benefits as the surviving spouse of the deceased employee under the EEOICPA. On November 21, 2001 and December 26, 2001, [Claimant 2] and [Claimant 3] respectively filed claims for survivor benefits as the surviving children of the deceased employee under the EEOICPA. The claimants identified lung and kidney cancer as the diagnosed conditions on which their claims were based. [Claimant 1] submitted an employment history form (Form EE-3) in which she stated that Bethlehem Steel Co. employed the deceased employee in March 1950. The claimants submitted a copy of a death certificate which shows the employee died on May 11, 1970, due to lung and kidney cancer and that [Claimant 1] was his surviving spouse. [Claimant 1] submitted a copy of a marriage certificate which shows she married the deceased employee on September 1, 1951. [Claimant 2] and [Claimant 3] submitted copies of their birth certificates which show the deceased employee was their father. The claimants submitted a copy of Dr. R. Medina’s July 10, 1968 pathology report in which he diagnosed the deceased employee with clear cell adenocarcinoma of the kidney.

On June 20, 2002, Department of Energy (DOE) representative Roger Anders advised, via Form EE-5, that the DOE had no employment information regarding the deceased employee. Subsequently on July 10, 2002, Mr. Anders advised, via Form EE-5, that the employment history provided by the claimants was correct, but that DOE had additional employment information that was relevant to the claim. In an attached statement, Mr. Anders advised that Bethlehem Steel (Lackawanna, NY) employed the deceased employee from July 26, 1945 to September 8, 1945 and from March 22, 1950 to November 27, 1969. [Claimant 1] submitted an employment affidavit form (Form EE-4) in which she stated that Bethlehem Steel employed the deceased employee from March 22, 1950 to 1969 as a boiler repairman.

On October 30, 2002, the Cleveland district office referred the evidence of record to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to assist in determining if the employee’s cancer was, at least as likely as not, related to his employment at Bethlehem Steel. On November 19, 2002, NIOSH informed the claimants of the receipt of their claims for benefits under the EEOICPA and provided them an explanation of the dose reconstruction procedures. On May 20, 2003, [Claimant 1] and [Claimant 3] each signed a Form OCAS-1, indicating that they had reviewed the NIOSH Draft Report of Dose Reconstruction and agreed that it identified all of the relevant information they provided to NIOSH. On May 21, 2003, [Claimant 2] signed Form OCAS-1 indicating that he had reviewed the NIOSH Draft Report of Dose Reconstruction and agreed that it identified all of the relevant information he provided to NIOSH. On May 29, 2003, NIOSH provided the district office with the Final Report of Dose Reconstruction under the EEOICPA.

Based upon the evidence of record, the Cleveland district office issued a recommended decision on June 26, 2003, in which it found that:

1. [Claimant 1], [Claimant 3], and [Claimant 2] each filed a claim for survivor benefits on November 21, 2001, December 26, 2001 and November 21, 2001 respectively.

2. [Claimant 1] is the surviving spouse of [Employee], as she was married to him at the time of and for at least one year immediately prior to his death. There is no evidence that there is a living minor child of [Employee].

3. [Employee] had covered employment and worked at Bethlehem Steel in Lackawanna, NY during a covered period.

4. On July 10, 1968, [Employee] was diagnosed with kidney cancer which metastasized to the lungs, ribs, cerebral area and abdominal area.

5. The diagnosis of cancer was after [Employee] began covered employment.

6. NIOSH reported annual dose estimates for the kidney cancer from the date of initial radiation exposure during covered employment, to the date of the cancer’s first diagnosis. A summary and explanation of information and methods applied to produce these dose estimates, including the claimants’ involvement through an interview and review of the dose report, are documented in theNIOSH Report of Dose Reconstruction under EEOICPA,” dated May 29, 2003.

7. Based on the dose reconstruction performed by NIOSH, the Cleveland district office calculated the probability of causation (the likelihood that the cancer was caused by radiation exposure incurred while working at a covered facility) for the kidney cancer. The Cleveland district office determined that the kidney cancer was “at least as likely as not” (a 50% or greater probability) related to employment at the covered facility, as required by the EEOICPA.

In light of its findings of fact in connection with this claim, the district office made the following conclusions of law:

[Employee] was a covered employee under § 7384l(1)(B) of the EEOICPA as he was a covered employee with cancer as that term is defined by § 7384l(9)(B) of the EEOICPA. 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(1) (B), 7384l(9)(B).

NIOSH performed dose reconstruction estimates in accordance with § 7384n(d) of the EEOICPA and § 82.26 of the HHS regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(d), 42 C.F.R. § 82.26. The Department of Labor completed the Probability of Causation calculation in accordance with § 7384n(c)(3) of the EEOICPA and § 30.213 of the EEOICPA regulations, which references subpart E of 42 C.F.R. Part 81. 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(3), 20 C.F.R. 30.213.

As [Employee] was a covered employee and is now deceased, his survivor is entitled to compensation of $150,000.00, pursuant to § 7384s(a)(1) of the EEOICPA. 42 U.S.C. § 7384s(a)(1). [Claimant 1] is the spouse of [Employee], pursuant to § 7384s(e)(3)(A) of the EEOICPA. 42 U.S.C. § 7384s(e)(3)

(A). As there is no evidence of a living minor child of [Employee], the exception provided by § 7384s(e)(1)(F) of the EEOICPA does not apply and pursuant to § 7384s(e)(1)(A) of the EEOICPA, [Claimant 1] is thus entitled to the aforementioned compensation of $150,000.00. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384ls(e)(1)(F), 7384s(e)(1)(A).

On July 28, 2003, the Final Adjudication Branch received written notification from [Claimant 1] waiving any and all objections to the recommended decision.

OBJECTIONS

Section 30.310(a) of the EEOICPA implementing regulations provides that, “[w]ithin 60 days from the date the recommended decision is issued, the claimant must state, in writing, whether he or she objects to any of the findings of fact and/or conclusions of law contained in such decision, including HHS’s reconstruction of the radiation dose to which the employee was exposed (if any), and whether a hearing is desired.” 20 C.F.R. § 30.310(a). On July 22, 2003, [Claimant 3] filed written objections to the June 26, 2003 recommended decision. In her letter, [Claimant 3] described the mental and financial hardship she experienced after her father’s death. She also advised she was concerned that if her mother “passes on,” the case may be subjected to closure and she may never see the funds due her. On July 26, 2003, [Claimant 2] submitted a copy of his birth certificate and high school diploma to the FAB for review. He stated in his letter that he considered himself a minor going to school and that he graduated in June 1972.

Section 30.313 of the EEOICPA implementing regulations provides that, in reviewing any objections submitted the Final Adjudication Branch will review the written record, any additional evidence or argument submitted by the claimant, and conduct any additional investigation determined to be warranted in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 30.313.

After considering the written record of the claim forwarded by the Cleveland district office, the objections of [Claimant 3] and the evidence submitted by [Claimant 2], the FAB hereby makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. [Claimant 1] and [Claimant 2] filed claims for survivor benefits on November 21, 2001. [Claimant 3] filed a claim for survivor benefits on December 26, 2001.

2. The Department of Energy confirmed that the deceased employee was employed from July 26, 1945 to September 8, 1945 and from March 22, 1950 to November 27, 1969, by Bethlehem Steel (Lackawanna, NY), an atomic weapons employer.[1]

3. The deceased employee was diagnosed with clear cell adenocarcinoma of the kidney on July 10, 1968.

4. The deceased employee died on May 11, 1970, due to lung and kidney cancer.

5. [Claimant 1] was married to the deceased employee on September 1, 1951, and was his spouse at the time of death.

6. On May 29, 2003, NIOSH completed a Final Report of Dose Reconstruction under the EEOICPA based on the evidence of record provided by the Cleveland district office. The Final Adjudication Branch independently analyzed the information in that report and confirmed the 52.34% probability determined by NIOSH.

Based on the above-noted findings of fact in this claim, the FAB hereby also makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

To establish eligibility for compensation as a result of cancer, it must first be established that the deceased employee was: (1) a member of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) who was a DOE employee, a DOE contractor employee, or an atomic weapons employee who contracted a specified cancer after beginning such employment; or (2) a DOE employee, a DOE contractor employee or an atomic weapons employee who contracted cancer (that has been determined pursuant to guidelines promulgated by Health and Human Services, “to be at least as likely as not related to such employment”), after beginning such employment. 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(9) and 20 C.F.R. § 30.210.

Section 7384s(e)(1) of the EEOICPA provides that: “[i]n the case of a covered employee who is deceased at the time of payment of compensation under this section, whether or not the death is the result of the covered employee’s occupational illness, such payment may be made only as follows:

(A) If the covered employee is survived by a spouse who is living at the time of payment, such payment shall be made to such surviving spouse.

(B) If there is no surviving spouse described in subparagraph (A), such payment shall be made in equal shares to all children of the covered employee who are living at the time of payment.

[Employee] was an atomic weapons employee as defined by § 7384l(3) of the EEOICPA and he was a covered employee with cancer as defined by § 7384l(9)(B) as his renal cancer was at least as likely as not caused by his employment at an AWE facility, within the meaning of § 7384n of the Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384l(3), 7384l(9)(B), 7384n. [Claimant 1] is entitled to compensation benefits in the amount of $150,000.00 as the eligible surviving spouse of [Employee] in accordance with §§ 7384s(a) and 7384s(e) of the EEOICPA. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384s(a), 7384s(e). Additionally, [Claimant 3] and [Claimant 2] are surviving children of [Employee] but they are not entitled to benefits under the EEOICPA pursuant to § 7384s(e)(1)(B), which states that only “[if] there is no surviving spouse… payment shall be made in equal shares to all children of the covered employee who are living at the time of payment.” 42 U.S.C. § 7384s(e)(1)(B).

Washington, DC

Thomasyne L. Hill

Hearing Representative

Final Adjudication Branch

[1] U.S. Department of Energy. Bethlehem Steel. Worker Advocacy Facility List. Available:

http://tis.eh.doe.gov/advocacy/faclist/showfacility.cfm [retrieved August 8, 2003].

Page 859

EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 9813-2007 (Dep’t of Labor, January 25, 2007)

NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION

This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) concerning your claim for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended (EEOICPA or the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. For the reasons set forth below, the FAB accepts and approves your claim for compensation in the amount of $150,000.00 under Part B and $125,000.00 under Part E, with an additional $25,000.00 awarded under Part E for wage-loss.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On September 10, 2001, you filed a Form EE-2 under Part B as the surviving spouse of [Employee], indicating that he was diagnosed with kidney cancer as the result of his employment at a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. You filed a new Form EE-2 on May 24, 2006, under Part B and Part E of the EEOICPA, based on the conditions of renal, bone, lung and brain cancers.

You submitted a Form EE-3 (Employment History), indicating that [Employee] was employed at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) from 1961 to 1976. The DOE confirmed that [Employee] was employed at the NTS by Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Company, Inc. (REECo), a DOE contractor, from December 4, 1961 to January 21, 1963, from February 19, 1965 to June 3, 1970, and from April 19, 1971 to July 14, 1972.

You submitted medical evidence in support of your claim, including a pathology report concerning tissue from a left upper lung lobectomy performed on January 9, 1974, in which Dr. F. Ali and Dr. J. Mirra diagnosed clear cell carcinoma, with the origin most likely from a kidney primary. In a pathology report concerning the right kidney which was excised on March 4, 1974, Dr. M. Janssen and Dr. Mirra confirmed a diagnosis of well-differentiated metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

You submitted a copy of a marriage certificate showing that [Employee] and you ([Employee’s wife]) were married on March 12, 1945. A copy of [Employee]’s death certificate showed that his date of birth was August 26, 1922, and that you were married to him at the time of his death on March 17, 1977. The death certificate, signed by Dr. Russell Miller, listed [Employee]’s cause of death as hypernephroma of the kidney with metastases. You also submitted documentation evidencing your name change from [Employee’s last name] to [Employee’s wife’s current last name].

On January 10, 2002, the Seattle district office referred the case to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to determine whether [Employee]’s renal cancer was “at least as likely as not” related to his covered employment. However, the case was returned on August 7, 2006, based on the designation on June 26, 2006 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) of certain NTS employees as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

On October 31, 2006, the Seattle district office recommended that your claim for survivor benefits be accepted. The district office concluded that under Part B, [Employee] is a member of the SEC and he was diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma, which is a specified cancer under the Act. The district office further concluded that a DOE contractor employee that is entitled to compensation for an occupational illness under Part B is treated for purposes of Part E as a determination that the employee contracted that illness through exposure at a DOE facility. The district office concluded that, as [Employee] is now deceased as a result of the accepted condition of renal cancer, you, as his eligible survivor, are entitled to receive the basic survivor benefit of $150,000.00 under Part B, $125,000.00 under Part E, plus an additional $25,000.00 under Part E because [Employee] died not less than 10 years before attaining his normal retirement age of 65, for total compensation in the amount of $300,000.00. The district office noted that no determination on your claim for survivor benefits for the conditions of bone, lung, and brain cancers would be made since you were being awarded the maximum possible survivor benefits under the Act.

On October 31, 2006, the Seattle district office received a signed, dated statement from you indicating that neither you nor [Employee] had ever filed for or received any settlement or award from a tort suit related to the claimed exposure to radiation; that neither you nor [Employee] had ever filed for or received any payments, awards or benefits from a state workers’ compensation claim in relation to any of the claimed conditions; that neither you nor [Employee] had ever pled guilty to or been convicted of any charges connected with an application for or receipt of federal or state workers’ compensation; and that [Employee] did not have children under the age of 18 or under the age of 23 and enrolled in school full-time from age 18, or children incapable of self-support, at the time of his death.

On November 7, 2006, the FAB received written notification from you indicating that you waive all rights to file objections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the recommended decision.

After considering the evidence of record, the FAB hereby makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. You filed a claim for survivor benefits under Part B of EEOICPA on September 10, 2001, and under Parts B and E on May 24, 2006.

2. You are the surviving spouse of the employee, [Employee], and were married to him for at least one year immediately prior to his death.

3. [Employee] was employed at the NTS, a covered DOE facility, with REECo, a DOE contractor, for an aggregate of at least 250 work days, between the dates of January 27, 1951 and December 31, 1962; specifically, from December 4, 1961 to January 21, 1963; as well as from February 19, 1965 to June 3, 1970; and from April 19, 1971 to July 14, 1972. This employment qualifies [Employee] as a member of the SEC.

4. [Employee] was diagnosed with renal cancer, which is a specified cancer under EEOICPA, on January 9, 1974, after starting work at a DOE facility.

5. [Employee] was born on August 26, 1922, and his normal retirement would have been at age 65. He died on March 17, 1977, at the age of 54, not less than 10 years prior to his normal retirement age.

6. The evidence of record supports a causal connection between the employee’s death due to metastatic renal cancer and his exposure to radiation at a DOE facility.

7. Neither you nor [Employee] had ever filed for or received any settlement or award from a tort suit related to the claimed exposure to radiation; neither you nor [Employee] had ever filed for or received any payments, awards or benefits from a state workers’ compensation claim in relation to any of the claimed conditions; neither you nor [Employee] had ever pled guilty to or been convicted of any charges connected with an application for or receipt of federal or state workers’ compensation; and [Employee] did not have any children under the age of 18 or under the age of 23 and enrolled in school full-time from age 18, or children incapable of self-support, at the time of his death.

Based on the above noted findings of fact, the FAB hereby also makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Section 30.316(a) of the EEOICPA regulations provides that, if the claimant waives any objections to all or part of the recommended decision, the FAB may issue a final decision accepting the recommendation of the district office, either in whole or in part. See 20 C.F.R. § 30.316(a). You waived your right to file objections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the recommended decision issued on your claim for compensation benefits under the EEOICPA.

On June 26, 2006, the Secretary of HHS designated a class of certain employees as an addition to the SEC, i.e., DOE employees or DOE contractor or subcontractor employees who worked at the NTS from January 27, 1951 through December 31, 1962, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters (excluding aggregate work day requirements) established for other classes of employees included in the SEC, and who were monitored or should have been monitored. This SEC became effective July 26, 2006.

The employment evidence is sufficient to establish that the employee was employed at the NTS for an aggregate of at least 250 work days of covered SEC employment, specifically, from December 4, 1961 to January 21, 1963; as well as from February 19, 1965 to June 3, 1970; and from April 19, 1971 to July 14, 1972.

The employee was a member of the SEC pursuant to § 7384l(14) of the Act, who was diagnosed with renal cancer, which is a specified cancer under 20 C.F.R. § 30.5(ff)(4); and is, therefore, a “covered employee with cancer” under § 7384l(9)(A) of the Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384l(14) and 7384l(9)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 30.5(ff)(4). Further, you are the surviving spouse of the employee under 42 U.S.C. § 7384s(e)(1)(A) and you are entitled to compensation in the amount of $150,000.00. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384s(e)(1)(A), 7384s(a)(2).

The determination that a DOE contractor employee is entitled to compensation under Part B is treated for purposes of Part E that the employee contracted that illness through exposure at a DOE facility. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-4(a).

The evidence of record establishes that the employee was a “covered DOE contractor employee” as defined by § 7385s(1) in accordance with § 7385s-4(a); and the employee was diagnosed with acovered illness,” metastatic bone cancer, as defined by § 7385s(2). Further, it is at least as likely as not that exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility was a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the death of the employee. You are the employee’s covered spouse as defined by § 7385s-3(d)(1). As your spouse died at the age of 54, which is not less than at least 10 years before his normal retirement age of 65, you are then entitled, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-3(a) (2), to compensation in the amount of $150,000.00. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7385s(1), 7385s(2), 7385s-4(a), 7385s-3(d)(1) and 7385s-3(a)(2).

Accordingly, you are entitled to total compensation in the amount of $300,000.00. No adjudication of your claim for survivor benefits for the conditions of bone, lung, and brain cancers will be rendered, as you are being awarded the maximum possible survivor benefits under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 30.506(b); 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-3(b).

Seattle, WA

Keith Klose, Hearing Representative

Final Adjudication Branch

 

FREE EVALUATION