Below are the head notes for the FAB decisions and orders relating to the topic heading, Beryllium Illnesses. The head notes are grouped under the following subheadings: Beryllium sensitivity, CBD, pre-1993, CBD, 1993 forward, and Consequential conditions. To view a particular decision or order in its entirety, click on the hyperlink for that decision or order at the end of the head note.
- Where a covered employee has been found to have developed chronic beryllium disease (CBD) and has previously been found to have beryllium sensitivity under Part B, entitlement for reimbursement of medical costs related to CBD is retroactive to the date that the entitlement for medical benefits for beryllium sensitivity commenced. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 12177-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, September 17, 2004).
- Under Part B, a claim based on beryllium sensitivity must include an abnormal Lymphocyte Proliferation Test (LPT) performed on either blood or lung lavage cells. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 12177-2002 (Dep’t of Labor, September 17, 2004).
- Claimant, who only reported working for an AWE, is not eligible for compensation for beryllium sensitivity under EEOICPA. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 57708-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, October 25, 2004).
- A finding that the covered employee has beryllium sensitivity does not establish entitlement to any monetary compensation under Part B. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 58229-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 17, 2004).
- Claimants who filed a claim for their father’s beryllium sensitivity were not entitled to an award under Part B because compensation for beryllium sensitivity is not payable to survivors. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 60001-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, March 25, 2005).
- Under Part B, for diagnoses made before January 1, 1993, the chest x-ray must show abnormalities characteristic of CBD. The Act does not require that the abnormalities be classic for CBD. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 18283-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 17, 2004).
- The following evidence established three of the five diagnostic criteria in Part B of the Act for CBD diagnosed before January 1, 1993: (1) a chest x-ray and a CT scan characteristic of CBD showing that the employee had multiple pleural plaques; (2) a history of treatment for lung disease as a result of an abnormal pulmonary function; and (3) restrictive or obstructive lung physiology testing or diffusing lung capacity defect. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 56382-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, November 18, 2004); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 59062-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, September 13, 2004).
- Under Part B, if there is medical evidence that employee was treated, tested or diagnosed with a chronic respiratory disorder prior to 1993, the claims examiner may use the pre-1993 CBD criteria to evaluate the claim and is not limited only to use of medical reports prior to 1993 to meet the three of five criteria. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 57973-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, January 7, 2005).
- The only situation in which a normal beryllium LPT can be overcome to accept a post-1993 CBD diagnosis is when a lung tissue biopsy reveals the presence of granulomas consistent with CBD. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30568-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, September 16, 2005).
- A claim that contains a normal or borderline LPT and a lung tissue biopsy that confirms the presence of granulomas consistent with CBD may be accepted as a valid claim for CBD if the treating physician provides a detailed narrative report detailing the history of the claimant’s LPT results and steroid use. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 30568-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, September 16, 2005); EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 55006-2005 (Dep’t of Labor, December 7, 2004).
- Since the file was devoid of any evidence showing that the employee underwent treatment for a chronic respiratory disorder prior to 1993, FAB evaluated whether the medical evidence was sufficient to establish a diagnosis of CBD using the post-1993 statutory diagnostic criteria. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 20120308-50279-1 (Dep’t of Labor, May 22, 2012).
- To establish that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a consequential condition of beryllium sensitivity or established CBD requires a fully rationalized medical report by a physician that shows the relationship between the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the established CBD. Neither the fact that the injury, illness, impairment, or disability manifests itself after a diagnosis of beryllium sensitivity or established CBD, nor the belief of the claimant that that the injury, illness, impairment, or disability was caused by the beryllium sensitivity or established CBD is sufficient in itself to prove a causal relationship. EEOICPA Fin. Dec. No. 19516-2004 (Dep’t of Labor, October 15, 2004).