ADVISORY BOARD
There is constant ongoing advocacy to change the program for the better. One important issue is an attempt to have a legislative change creating an advisory board for over site of the claims filed under the EEOICP. There has been a documented history of claims wrongly denied under the program. The argument for the advisory board is to create a board that can review the claims process and assist in assuring that the claims are handled fairly.
The EEOICP places the burden on the claimant in Part E claims. In other words the claimant is responsible for proving that the exposure to chemicals or toxins caused the occupational illness. At the same time the Claims Examiners and Hearing Examiners for the Department of Labor are tasked with making a decision on whether the claimant has proven the claim. Both the burden of trying to prove that a chemical or toxic exposure caused, contributed to or aggravated an illness and the decision making process of whether enough evidence exists is extremely complicated and scientifically technical. In many instances the evidence is not evaluated properly and the wrong decisions are made denying claims.
The Department of Labor uses contracted experts to assist in making the decisions regarding causation. The Department of Labor contracts with doctors, industrial hygienists and toxicologists to provide opinions on medical or scientific decisions. There is often times disputes over both the credentials of the experts to make the decisions and the veracity of the contracted experts decisions. The only way to dispute the opinions or credentials of the DOL experts is within the EEOICP program through the Department of Labor. As such, a claimant is arguing to the Department of Labor that the expert they hired is not qualified to do the job!
Additionally, there are four geographical district offices that are responsible for making this decision making process. Through a network of advocates and authorized representatives communicating with each other there is evidence that claims similarly situated are treated differently depending on the district office handling a claim. This creates an unfair process for claimants that may have been approved and compensated if their claim had been handled by a different district office.
The EEOICP is self contained administrative process. The Claims Examiner makes the initial recommended decision. The Final Adjudication Branch makes the final decisions and either affirms the approval or denial. The Claimant has the right to object to a recommended decision and a hearing on the facts. However the evidence at the hearing is evaluated by a Hearing Representative from the Final Adjudication Branch. Any further attempts to appeal a denial is handled by either the District Directors or the Director of the EEOICP. As a result, all the decisions made regarding disputed claims are handled within the EEOICP. There is no option within the EEOICP to have an independent review of the any disputed decisions regarding claims.
The advisory board would oversee this process of decision making. The role of the board would be to oversee claims and provide an avenue for claims in dispute to be reviewed by and independent decision maker.
SITE EXPOSURE MATRIX
The Site Exposure Matrix is the Department of Labor website that provides information about exposures to chemicals and toxins at DOE sites. The goal of the SEM is to provide information to Claims Examiners and claimants about what a worker was exposed to while employed at a DOE facility. The SEM can provide information about the relationship of a particular chemical or toxin to an occupational illness. It can also provide information about what chemicals or toxins a particular job title may have been exposed to during employment at a facility.
However, the SEM has many flaws. Both the DOL and NIOSH concede that it does not contain all the scientific information necessary. The SEM lacks all the information about chemicals or toxins at a particular facility. The SEM does not contain all the medical or scientific research or studies regarding the relationship between exposure and occupational illnesses. Additionally, the SEM is lacking in information about what chemicals and toxins particular workers where exposed to while carrying out their job duties and the weapons facility.
There is a push by advocates to update the SEM. There has been some movement within the DOL and NIOSH to better the SEM. The proposed advisory board would provide an independent review of these modifications and improvements.
There is constant ongoing advocacy to change the program for the better. One important issue is an attempt to have a legislative change creating an advisory board for over site of the claims filed under the EEOICP. There has been a documented history of claims wrongly denied under the program. The argument for the advisory board is to create a board that can review the claims process and assist in assuring that the claims are handled fairly.
The EEOICP places the burden on the claimant in Part E claims. In other words the claimant is responsible for proving that the exposure to chemicals or toxins caused the occupational illness. At the same time the Claims Examiners and Hearing Examiners for the Department of Labor are tasked with making a decision on whether the claimant has proven the claim. Both the burden of trying to prove that a chemical or toxic exposure caused, contributed to or aggravated an illness and the decision making process of whether enough evidence exists is extremely complicated and scientifically technical. In many instances the evidence is not evaluated properly and the wrong decisions are made denying claims.
The Department of Labor uses contracted experts to assist in making the decisions regarding causation. The Department of Labor contracts with doctors, industrial hygienists and toxicologists to provide opinions on medical or scientific decisions. There is often times disputes over both the credentials of the experts to make the decisions and the veracity of the contracted experts decisions. The only way to dispute the opinions or credentials of the DOL experts is within the EEOICP program through the Department of Labor. As such, a claimant is arguing to the Department of Labor that the expert they hired is not qualified to do the job!
Additionally, there are four geographical district offices that are responsible for making this decision making process. Through a network of advocates and authorized representatives communicating with each other there is evidence that claims similarly situated are treated differently depending on the district office handling a claim. This creates an unfair process for claimants that may have been approved and compensated if their claim had been handled by a different district office.
The EEOICP is self contained administrative process. The Claims Examiner makes the initial recommended decision. The Final Adjudication Branch makes the final decisions and either affirms the approval or denial. The Claimant has the right to object to a recommended decision and a hearing on the facts. However the evidence at the hearing is evaluated by a Hearing Representative from the Final Adjudication Branch. Any further attempts to appeal a denial is handled by either the District Directors or the Director of the EEOICP. As a result, all the decisions made regarding disputed claims are handled within the EEOICP. There is no option within the EEOICP to have an independent review of the any disputed decisions regarding claims.
The advisory board would oversee this process of decision making. The role of the board would be to oversee claims and provide an avenue for claims in dispute to be reviewed by and independent decision maker.
SITE EXPOSURE MATRIX
The Site Exposure Matrix is the Department of Labor website that provides information about exposures to chemicals and toxins at DOE sites. The goal of the SEM is to provide information to Claims Examiners and claimants about what a worker was exposed to while employed at a DOE facility. The SEM can provide information about the relationship of a particular chemical or toxin to an occupational illness. It can also provide information about what chemicals or toxins a particular job title may have been exposed to during employment at a facility.
However, the SEM has many flaws. Both the DOL and NIOSH concede that it does not contain all the scientific information necessary. The SEM lacks all the information about chemicals or toxins at a particular facility. The SEM does not contain all the medical or scientific research or studies regarding the relationship between exposure and occupational illnesses. Additionally, the SEM is lacking in information about what chemicals and toxins particular workers where exposed to while carrying out their job duties and the weapons facility.
There is a push by advocates to update the SEM. There has been some movement within the DOL and NIOSH to better the SEM. The proposed advisory board would provide an independent review of these modifications and improvements.