Docket Number: 51813-2004

Case Information

EMPLOYEE:	[Name Deleted]
CLAIMANTS:	[Name Deleted] [Name Deleted] [Name Deleted] [Name Deleted]
FILE NUMBER:	[Number Deleted]
DOCKET NUMBERS:	51813-2004 53936-2004 55531-2004 55533-2004
DECISION DATE:	December 27, 2004

 

NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION FOLLOWING A HEARING

This is the decision of the Final Adjudication Branch concerning the claims for compensation under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA). For the reasons stated below, the claims for survivor benefits are denied.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On December 2, 2003, [Claimant 1] filed a claim for survivor benefits under Part B of the EEOICPA. On February 4, 2004, [Claimant 2] filed for survivor benefits under Part B of the EEOICPA. On March 16, 2004, [Claimant 3] and [Claimant 4] filed claims for survivor benefits under Part B of the EEOICPA. Each claimant filed as a surviving grandchild of Employee]. [Employee] passed away on December 7, 1955. The claimants listed multiple myeloma and uremia amyloidosis as the medical conditions on which their claims are based. The evidence of record is sufficient to establish that [Employee] was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a condition covered under Part B of the Act, in March 1955, as evidenced by information on his December 7, 1955 death certificate.

Social Security Earnings statements as well as the work history provided by the claimants, indicate that [Employee] was employed by various employers in Weldon Spring, MO, in approximately 1945. The record contains social security earnings records for the claimed period of time

The district office informed each claimant that the Weldon Spring Plant was not a covered facility until 1957. The district office afforded each claimant the opportunity to provide evidence to support that [Employee] had employment covered under the Act. The record fails to establish that the claimants provided additional employment evidence to the district office for review.

By recommended decision dated April 28, 2004, the Seattle district office recommended denial of each of the claims based on its findings that [Employee] is not a covered employee as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 7384l; and the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that [Employee] was present at a covered facility as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 7384l (12) while working for the Department of Energy or any of its covered contractors, subcontractors or vendors as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(11) during a covered time period.

On May 17, 2004, the Final Adjudication Branch received [Claimant 2]’s letter of objection and request for an oral hearing. [Claimant 2] objected to the Seattle district office’s recommended decision on the basis of the covered time period which began in 1957. On June 16, 2004, a hearing was held in St. Louis, MO at the request of [Claimant 2]. It is noted that [Claimant 1] filed an objection to the recommended decision but did not request a hearing. [Claimant 1] participated in the June 16, 2004 hearing. On June 22, 2004, the Final Adjudication Branch received the June 15, 2004 letter from [Claimant 3] and [Claimant 4] objecting to the April 28, 2004, recommended decision. [Claimant 3] and [Claimant 4] object to the Seattle district office’s recommended decision on the basis of the covered time period which began in 1957.

On June 28, 2004, the undersigned contacted [Claimant 3] and explained that the letter of objection was received after the hearing had been held, but within the 60 day period in which objections could be filed. [Claimant 3] was informed that an oral hearing could be scheduled or they could be added to an existing hearing docket. After conferring with [Claimant 4], [Claimant 3] notified this office that they would like to be added to the July 27, 2004 docket of hearings. By letter dated July 6, 2004, each of the claimants were notified that a hearing at the request of [Claimant 3] and [Claimant 4] was to be conducted July 27, 2004 via telephone. By letters dated June 28, 2004, and September 1, 2004, each of the claimants were provided a copy of the transcripts from the June 16, 2004 and July 27, 2004 hearings respectively.

At the June 16, 2004 hearing, [Claimant 2] testified that when she was young, the family talked about the chemicals her grandfather, [Employee], worked with; he worked unprotected; that [Employee] became very ill and the family felt that it was a result of his work. [Claimant 2] provided testimony regarding information found on the internet (Exhibit A) which she felt showed that Weldon Springs was opened in 1940 and that the time frame established as the covered periods should be expanded. See hearing transcript pages 8 and 10. [Claimant 2] further testified that her mother talked about experiments conducted on [Employee] for “multiple myeloma, for the Japanese, for radiation poisoning, investigating on how – what caused it, how the body acts, what to do about it.” [Claimant 2] stated that she is researching this issue further. See hearing transcript page 15. The records provided by the Social Security Administration (Exhibit B) indicate that [Employee] worked in Kansas City in 1942 and 1943. [Claimant 2] testified that this may indicate that [Employee] worked at the Kansas City Plant and is attempting to confirm this. See hearing transcript page 10. [Claimant 2] also stated that one of her grandfather’s employers, T.A. Rick (Exhibit C), was a subcontractor to Mallinckrodt.

[Claimant 1] testified that his grandfather, [Employee], worked at Weldon Springs and at Kansas City and that during this timeframe, [Employee] was exposed to “things that he just did not know about.” [Claimant 1] testified that exposure to chemicals resulted in his grandfather’s death. See hearing transcript page 16. On July 9, 2004, [Claimant 2] requested a 30 day extension in which to provide additional evidence.

The hearing conducted on July 27, 2004, was attended by [Claimant 3]. [Claimant 3] testified that she recalled her grandmother stating that her grandfather, [Employee] “wouldn’t have gotten sick if it had not been for the plant.” During the hearing, [Claimant 3] questioned the provisions of the Act. On September 1, 2004, the undersigned provided [Claimant 3] with a copy of the Act along with the hearing transcript for her review.

The claimants have not provided any additional evidence or comments to the hearing transcripts.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Each claimant filed a claim for survivor benefits as a grandchild of the employee.

2. The claimants listed multiple myeloma and uremia amyloidosis as the medical conditions on which their claims are based. [Employee] was diagnosed with multiple myeloma in March 1955. Uremia amyloidosis is not a condition covered under Part B of the Act.

3. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) constructed the Weldon Spring Uranium Feed Materials Plant and contracted with the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company to operate the plant starting in June 1957. The claimants stated that the employee worked for various employers at the Weldon Spring Plant in approximately 1945.

4. On April 28, 2004, the Seattle district office issued a recommended decision to deny the claims for survivor benefits because the evidence of record is insufficient to establish that [Employee] was present at a covered facility while working for the Department of Energy or any of its covered contractors, subcontractors or vendors.

5. The claimants objected to the recommended decision. [Claimant 2], [Claimant 3], and [Claimant 4] each requested a hearing. [Claimant 1] objected to the recommended decision, but did not request a hearing.

6. The hearings were held on June 16, 2004 and July 27, 2004. The claimants have not submitted any additional evidence or comments on the hearing transcripts, copies of which were sent to the claimants on June 28, 2004 and September 1, 2004.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The issue to be decided is whether [Employee] is a covered employee as defined under the Act based on the claimed employment in Weldon Spring, MO, in 1945. According to the updated Department of Energy’s facility list, reviewed by the undersigned on December 15, 2004, the Weldon Springs Plant is designated as a Department of Energy facility for the period of 1957 to 1967 and again from 1975 through the present for remediation.[1] The DOE facility list states in part: “In 1955 the Army transferred 205 acres of what had been the Weldon Springs Ordnance Works to the AEC for construction of a uranium feed materials plant. The AEC constructed the Weldon Spring Uranium Feed Materials Plant at this location and contracted with the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company to operate the plant starting in June 1957. The plant was used for uranium refining activities in support of the national defense program. The AEC closed down the plant in December 1966 after deciding it was obsolete.”

At the June 16, 2004 hearing, [Claimant 2] provided as Exhibit A, information from the internet[2] which states in part: “The Weldon Springs Uranium Feed Materials Plant is on 220 acres of land between the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers near St. Louis, Missouri. Weldon Springs Site is located at 7295 Highway 94 South in St. Charles, Missouri, on a portion of the former Weldon Springs Ordinance Works, a 17,000 acre Army facility operated from 1941-45 which produced explosives. A quarry located on the site was used by the Army for limestone to construct the Ordinance Works and then as a dump for TNT and DNT contaminated waste and rubble which they burned. In 1955 the Army transferred some of the property to the AEC who built the Uranium Feed Materials Plant. . . .” According to both the DOE facility list and Exhibit A, the Army transferred land to the AEC in 1955. The claim is based on employment in 1945. The established covered time period for the Weldon Spring Plant is 1957 to 1967 and from 1975 to the present. [Employee] passed away in 1955, prior to the covered time period.

To date, the claimants have not provided any evidence in support of their belief that [Employee] may have worked at the Kansas City Plant during the covered time period.

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned must find that the claimants have not established their claims for compensation under Part B of the EEOICPA and that the Recommended Decision of the district office is correct. Therefore, the undersigned hereby affirms the denial of the claims for compensation under Part B of the EEOICPA.

Washington, DC

Linda M. Parker

Hearing Representative

 

---