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.
A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia.
Cancer – stomach; Gastric cancer; Gastric carcinoma; Adenocarcinoma of the stomach
Last reviewed: October 30, 2013.
Stomach cancer is cancer that starts in the stomach.
Several types of cancer can occur in the stomach. The most common type is called adenocarcinoma. It starts from one of the common cell types found in the lining of the stomach.
Adenocarcinoma is a common cancer of the digestive tract. It is not common in the United States. But it is common in eastern Asia, parts of South America, and eastern and central Europe. It occurs most often in men over age 40.
The number of people in the United States who develop this cancer has decreased over the years. Experts think this decrease may be in part because people are eating less salted, cured, and smoked foods.
You are more likely to get diagnosed with gastric cancer if you:
- Have a diet low in fruits and vegetables
- Have a family history of gastric cancer
- Have an infection of the stomach by bacteria called Helicobacter pylori
- Had a polyp larger than 2 centimeters in your stomach
- Have inflammation and swelling of the stomach for a long time (chronic atrophic gastritis)
- Have pernicious anemia
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:
(5) The following diseases, provided onset was at least five years after first occupational exposure:
(c) Primary cancer of the:
e. Other Diseases. For the following diseases, onset must have been at least five years after initial exposure during qualifying SEC employment:
(3) Primary cancer of the:
2. RECA Background.
c. Section 4 of RECA.
(b) Covered Illnesses: Leukemia (other than chronic lymphocytic leukemia), multiple myeloma, lymphomas (other than Hodgkin’s disease), and primary cancer of the thyroid, male or female breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, bile ducts, gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, ovary, liver (except if cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated), or lung.
EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10432-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 13, 2004)
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION
This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch concerning your claim for compensation under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA or the Act). See 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. Upon a careful review of the facts and an independent review of the record, the Final Adjudication Branch concludes that the evidence of record is insufficient to allow compensation under the Act. Accordingly, your claim for benefits is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 24, 2001, you filed a claim, Form EE-1, for benefits under the EEOICPA based on prostate cancer, stomach cancer, other lung condition specified as a spot, goiter and an unspecified throat condition.
Medical evidence submitted in support of your claim included a surgical pathology report dated January 9, 1995 that showed a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the stomach and a hospital discharge summary dated January 11, 1995 that showed a diagnosis of gastric carcinoma. The medical evidence also showed diagnoses of benign prostatic hyperplasia in January 1995; multinodular goiter, status post; right thyroid lobectomy in March 1997; and stable pulmonary nodules in February 2000.
You provided an employment history on Form EE-3 indicating that you were employed at INCO, Reduction Pilot Plant (RPP) in Huntington, West Virginia from October 11, 1952 to 1986. The Huntington Pilot Plant in Huntington, West Virginia is recognized as a DOE facility from 1951 to 1963, and from 1978 to 1979. See Department of Energy Worker Advocacy Facilities List.
On October 5, 2001, the Cleveland district office notified you that your claims for a goiter, lung and throat conditions were not covered under the Act.
On January 14, 2002, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported that they had no employment information on you. On January 29, 2002, the Cleveland district office notified you that DOE does not have any employment record to show that you worked for INCO at the RPP during the period of your employment. You were advised to furnish any document or documents (copy of security clearance, ID card, SSA records, etc.) that would establish your employment at INCO from 1952 to 1986. You were also advised that you could ask others to affirm your employment by INCO by completing and returning an Employment History Affidavit (Form EE-4). You were asked to provide the requested evidence within 30 days of the letter.
In response on April 8, 2002, you submitted a copy of your Itemized Statement of Earnings from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that showed you received earnings from INCO Alloys International Inc. from 1952 to 1986.
On December 8, 2003, the Cleveland district office requested the DOE’s corporate verifier for INCO to determine whether you worked in the RPP. On December 15, 2003, the DOE’s corporate verifier reported that no record was found to establish that you were assigned and/or worked in the RPP while employed by INCO from 1952 to 1986.
On January 27, 2004, the Cleveland district office explained that while the evidence shows that you worked at INCO in Huntington, West Virginia from 1952 to 1986, there is no evidence showing that you were assigned and/or worked in the RPP, the covered nuclear portion of the facility, while employed by INCO from 1952 to 1986. The SSA records you submitted merely show that you received earnings from INCO from 1952 to 1986; however they do not place you within the RPP. They requested that you provide any documents that would show that you were assigned by INCO to work at the RPP, the covered nuclear portion of the facility. No response to this request was received.
On July 1, 2004, the district office issued a recommended decision which concluded that you are not entitled to compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 7384s because the evidence failed to establish that the you are a covered employee, as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(1); and that you did not provide sufficient evidence to show that you were employed at an “atomic weapons employer facility” as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(5) nor that you were employed at a “Department of Energy facility” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12).
FINDINGS OF FACT
- You filed a claim for benefits under the EEOICPA on September 24, 2001.
- You were employed by INCO Alloys International Inc. in Huntington, West Virginia from 1956 to 1986.
- The DOE’s corporate verifier for INCO confirmed that they have no record that you worked at the RPP, the covered nuclear portion of that facility. The Huntington Pilot Plant was a Department of Energy (DOE) facility from 1951 to 1963 and from 1978 to 1979. INCO was the DOE contractor at that facility from 1951 to 1963.
- You did not provide sufficient employment evidence to establish that you were assigned by INCO to work in the RPP.
- You were advised of the deficiencies in your claim and provided with the opportunity to correct them.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I have reviewed the recommended decision issued by the Cleveland district office on July 1, 2004. I find that you have not filed any objections to the recommended decision, and that the sixty-day period for filing such objections has expired. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 30.310(a), 30.316(a).
In order to be afforded coverage under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, you must establish that you have been diagnosed with a designated occupational illness incurred as a result of exposure to silica, beryllium, and/or radiation: cancer, beryllium sensitivity, chronic beryllium disease, and silicosis. See 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(15); 20 C.F.R. § 30.110(a). Further, the illness must have been incurred while in the performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its vendors, contractors, and subcontractors, or for an atomic weapons employer or facility. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384l(4)-(7), (9), (11).
Additionally, in order to be afforded coverage as a “covered employee with cancer,” you must show that you were a DOE employee, a DOE contractor employee, or an atomic weapons employee, who contracted cancer after beginning employment at a DOE facility or an atomic weapons employer facility. See 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(9); 20 C.F.R. § 30.210(b). While you did provide evidence of a diagnosis of stomach cancer, the record in its current posture lacks proof that you worked in covered employment under the Act.
The record shows that by letters dated January 29, 2002 and January 25, 2004, you were requested to provide the required information to prove you had covered employment under the Act.
It is the claimant’s responsibility to establish entitlement to benefits under the Act. The EEOICPA regulations at § 30.111(a) state that the claimant bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of every criterion under any compensable claim category set forth in § 30.110. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence means it is more likely than not that a given proposition is true. Subject to the exceptions expressly provided in the Act and regulations, the claimant also bears the burden of providing to the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs all written medical documentation, contemporaneous records, or other records and documents necessary to establish all criteria for benefits set forth in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 30.111(a).
The record in this case shows that you did not submit proof that you had covered employment under the Act. Therefore, your claim must be denied for lack of evidence showing that you had covered employment under the EEOICPA.
For the above reasons the Final Adjudication Branch concludes that the evidence of record is insufficient to allow compensation under the Act. Accordingly, your claim for benefits is denied.
Debra A. Benedict
Acting District Manager
Final Adjudication Branch
EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 43114-2003 (Dep’t of Labor, September 22, 2003)
FINAL DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF THE WRITTEN RECORD
This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch concerning your claim 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). Since you submitted a letter of objection, but did not specifically request a hearing, a review of the written record was performed, in accordance with § 30.312 of the implementing regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 30.312.
A claimant who receives a recommended denial from the district office is entitled to file objections to the decision, in accordance with § 30.310 of the implementing regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 30.310. In reviewing any objections submitted, under § 30.313 of the implementing regulations, 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.
For the reasons set forth below, your claim for benefits is denied.
STATEMENT OF CASE
On March 18, 2003, you filed a claim for survivor benefits under the EEOICPA as the spouse of the employee. On May 19, 2003, the Department of Justice (DOJ) verified that on May 31, 2002, you accepted compensation under § 4 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in the amount of $75,000.
42 U.S.C. § 7385j of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act states: “Except in accordance with § 7384u of this title, an individual may not receive compensation or benefits under the compensation program for cancer and also receive compensation under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) or § 1112 (c) of Title 38.”
The Denver district office advised you of the deficiencies in your claim and afforded you the opportunity to correct them. There is no evidence in the file to indicate that you provided additional evidence to the district office for review.
By a recommended decision dated July 2, 2003, the Denver district office recommended that your claim for benefits under the EEOICPA be denied. In the recommendation, the district office found that:
1. You filed a claim under EEOICPA on March 18, 2003;
2. You did not establish entitlement under the EEOICPA as you did not receive an award from the Department of Justice under § 5 of RECA. You have not provided evidence that your husband could be covered under the EEOICPA as an employee of the Department of Energy or Atomic Weapons facility. You have not claimed that your husband had a medical condition other than stomach cancer, a condition for which you have already been awarded benefits as your husband’s eligible survivor, under § 4 of RECA as an on-site participant.
By your letter of July 30, 2003, you requested assistance from Daniel K. Akaka, United States Senate in “appealing the decision that denied me compensation as an eligible beneficiary of a covered employee under the Energy Employees’ Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA)â€¦.” You did not state specific objections to the recommended decision. You included medical and employment records with your letter to Senator Akaka.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On May 31, 2002, you accepted compensation under § 4 of the RECA for your husband’s cancer.
The additional medical records do not indicate that your husband was diagnosed with a condition covered under the EEOICPA, other than cancer.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In accordance with 20 C.F.R. §30.313, I have reviewed the record in this case and conclude that no further investigation is warranted.
I find that the decision of the district office is supported by the evidence and the law, and cannot be changed based on the objections and the additional evidence you submitted. As explained in § 30.110(b) of the implementing regulations, “Any claim that does not meet all of the criteria for at least one of these categories, as set forth in these regulations, must be denied.” 20 C.F.R. § 30.110(b). The undersigned hereby denies payment of lump sum compensation and medical benefits.
Linda M. Parker
 § 7384u states: “An individual who receives, or has received, $100,000 under section 5 of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note) for a claim made under that Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as a “covered uranium employee”), or the survivor of that covered uranium employee if the employee is deceased, shall receive compensation under this section in the amount of $50,000.”
EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 10012834-2006 (Dep’t of Labor, February 21, 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 stated below, your claim for benefits under Part E of the Act is accepted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 10, 2003, the FAB issued a final decision which concluded that your father was a member of the Special Exposure Cohort based on his employment at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (GDP), a Department of Energy (DOE) facility, and that he was diagnosed with colon cancer after beginning that employment. For those reasons, the FAB concluded that you, as a surviving child, were entitled to compensation under Part B.
On March 13, 2003, you filed a DOE F 350.2 (Request for Review by Physicians Panel) based on colon cancer having been caused by your father’s work at a DOE facility. A copy of your father’s death certificate shows that his death was due to metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma. A copy of your father’s autopsy report indicates that colon cancer had metastasized to the peritoneum, omentum, intestines, stomach and liver.
You submitted a copy of your birth certificate which shows that your date of birth is April 23, 1947. A copy of your father’s death certificate shows that he was born on August 16, 1922, and died on November 26, 2002, and that he was widowed at the time of his death.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) provided an itemized statement of earnings for the period of January 2000 to December 2004 which shows that you had no earnings reported for that period. A letter from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA), Cleveland Regional Office, dated April 21, 2006, shows that you are entitled to receive benefits at the 100% rate, effective December 1, 1997, and that such entitlement continued to the date of this letter. Copies of DVA Rating Decisions, dated March 23, 1995 and April 29, 1997, show that you were found to be permanently and totally disabled from December 30, 1975, and that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was found to be totally disabling from March 9, 1994.
On January 10, 2007, the district office issued a recommended decision which concluded that because your father was a DOE contractor employee who was entitled to compensation under Part B of the Act, it was established that he contracted a covered illness through exposure to radiation at a DOE facility. The recommended decision also concluded that his death was at least as likely as not aggravated, contributed to, or caused by that radiation. The district office found that, at the time of your father’s death, you were incapable of self-support. For those reasons, the district office concluded that you, as his surviving child, are entitled to $125,000.00 under Part E.
On January 22, 2007, the FAB received written notification that you waive any and all objections to the recommended decision. After considering the recommended decision and all the evidence in the case file, the FAB hereby makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. You filed a claim for benefits on March 13, 2003.
2. By final decision dated September 10, 2003, the FAB determined that your father was employed at a DOE facility and was entitled to compensation under Part B for an occupational illness, colon cancer, which was diagnosed after the beginning of that employment.
3. Your father died on November 26, 2002, due to metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma which had originated in the colon.
4. You are a surviving child of [Employee], and were incapable of self-support at the time of his death.
Based on the above-noted findings of fact in this claim, the FAB hereby makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The term “covered child” means a child of the employee who, at the time of the employee’s death, was under the age of 18 years, or under the age of 23 years and a full-time student who was continuously enrolled in an educational institution since attaining the age of 18 years, or incapable of self-support. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-3(d)(2). You were 54 years old at the time of your father’s death. Based on information provided by SSA and DVA, you had not been paid wages for at least the period of 2000 to 2004 and you were found to be totally (100%) disabled due to PTSD and other disabling conditions since at least March 9, 1994 and continuing until the time of your father’s death on November 26, 2002.
Based on the final decision of September 10, 2003, I have determined that, as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-4(a), colon cancer (resulting in metastatic mucinous adenocarcinoma) was contracted by your father through exposure to a toxic substance at a DOE facility. The evidence of record establishes that his death was at least as likely as not aggravated, contributed to, or caused by that exposure. For those reasons, I conclude that, as his surviving child, you are entitled to $125,000.00 as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-3(a)(1).
Tracy Smart, Hearing Representative
Final Adjudication Branch