C.F.R.
»
Title 20
» CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER C—ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT OF 2000 › PART 30—CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER THE ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM ACT OF 2000, AS AMENDED › Subpart D—Adjudicatory Process
OWCP district offices will issue recommended decisions with respect to most claims for entitlement under Part B and/or Part E of EEOICPA that are filed pursuant to the regulations set forth in subpart B of this part. In circumstances where a claim is made for more than one benefit available under Part B and/or Part E of the Act, OWCP may issue a recommended decision on only part of that particular claim in order to adjudicate that portion of the claim as quickly as possible. Should this occur, OWCP will issue one or more recommended decisions on the deferred portions of the claim when the adjudication of those portions is completed. All recommended decisions granting and/or denying claims for entitlement under Part B and/or Part E of the Act will be forwarded to the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB). Claimants will be given an opportunity to object to all or part of the recommended decision before the FAB. The FAB will consider objections filed by a claimant and conduct a hearing, if requested to do so by the claimant, before issuing a final decision on the claim for entitlement. Claimants may request judicial review of a final decision of FAB by filing an action in Federal district court.
[84 FR 3050, Feb. 8, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Berry v. United States Dep't of Labor, 832 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2016).
“The adjudication process culminates in a final decision by the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB), 20 C.F.R. §§30.300 , 30.316, which the claimant has an opportunity to challenge in federal court, 20 C.”
Lanier v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 296 F. Supp. 3d 834 (W.D. Ky. 2017).
· cites it 5× “20 C.F.R. §§ 30.300 , - .306. Thereafter, the claimant may file written objections to the recommended decision with the Final Adjudication Branch ("FAB").”
Barrie v. United States Dep't of Labor, 597 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (D. Colo. 2009).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 30.300 . OWCP then forwards its recommendation to the Final Adjudication Branch (“FAB”), at which point the claimant is given an opportunity to file an objection to the OWCP recommendation.”
Smith v. United States Dep't of Labor, 928 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Nev. 2012).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 30.300 . The Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs then forwards its recommendation to the Final Adjudication Branch at which point the claimant is given an opportunity to file an objection to the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’…”
Gomez v. United States, 459 F. App'x 701 (10th Cir. 2012).
“20 C.F.R. § 30.300 . A claimant may object to the recommended decision and may request a hearing before the FAB.”
David Hous. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Ky. 2018).
“20 C.F.R. §§ 30.300 , - .306. Thereafter, the claimant may file written objections to the recommended decision with the Final Adjudication Branch ("FAB").”
Adams v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 360 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D.S.C. 2018).
· cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. §§ 30.300 , 30.306. A claimant is permitted to file an objection with the Final Adjudication Branch ("FAB") regarding the OWCP's recommended decision.”
Still v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2020).
“20 C.F.R. § 30.300 . A claimant may challenge the recommended decision within sixty days by filing an objection with OWCP’s Final Adjudication Branch (“FAB”).”
Love (D. Nev. 2025).
“See 20 C.F.R. §§ 30.300, 30.305–.308. The claimant then has 60 days to file 19 written objections to the Recommended Decision with the Final Adjudication Branch (FAB) 20 within OWCP.”
Reif v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2026).
“20 C.F.R. § 30.300 . Page 4 of 15 The claimant then has 60 days to file written objections with the OWCP’s Final Adjudication Branch.”
Hand v. Perez (D.D.C. 2015).
“20 C.F.R. §§ 30.300 , 30.305, 30.306, 30.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.