U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 84— DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XVI— ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM › Part Part B— Program Administration

42 U.S.C. § 7384n

Exposure in the performance of duty

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) BerylliumA covered beryllium employee shall, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, be determined to have been exposed to beryllium in the performance of duty for the purposes of the compensation program if, and only if, the covered beryllium employee was—(1) employed at a Department of Energy facility; or(2) present at a Department of Energy facility, or a facility owned and operated by a beryllium vendor, because of employment by the United States, a beryllium vendor, or a contractor or subcontractor of the Department of Energy,during a period when beryllium dust, particles, or vapor may have been present at such facility.(b) Cancer

An individual with cancer specified in subclause (I), (II), or (III) of section 7384l(9)(B)(ii) of this title shall be determined to have sustained that cancer in the performance of duty for purposes of the compensation program if, and only if, the cancer specified in that subclause was at least as likely as not related to employment at the facility specified in that subclause, as determined in accordance with the guidelines established under subsection (c).

(c) Guidelines(1) For purposes of the compensation program, the President shall by regulation establish guidelines for making the determinations required by subsection (b).(2) The President shall establish such guidelines after technical review by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health under section 7384o of this title.(3) Such guidelines shall—(A) be based on the radiation dose received by the employee (or a group of employees performing similar work) at such facility and the upper 99 percent confidence interval of the probability of causation in the radioepidemiological tables published under section 7(b) of the Orphan Drug Act (42 U.S.C. 241 note), as such tables may be updated under section 7(b)(3) of such Act from time to time;(B) incorporate the methods established under subsection (d); and(C) take into consideration the type of cancer, past health-related activities (such as smoking), information on the risk of developing a radiation-related cancer from workplace exposure, and other relevant factors.(4) In the case of an atomic weapons employee described in section 7384l(3)(B) of this title, the following doses of radiation shall be treated, for purposes of paragraph (3)(A) of this subsection, as part of the radiation dose received by the employee at such facility:(A) Any dose of ionizing radiation received by that employee from facilities, materials, devices, or byproducts used or generated in the research, development, production, dismantlement, transportation, or testing of nuclear weapons, or from any activities to research, produce, process, store, remediate, or dispose of radioactive materials by or on behalf of the Department of Energy (except for activities covered by Executive Order No. 12344, dated February 1, 1982 (42 U.S.C. 7158 note) 11 See References in Text note below. pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program).(B) Any dose of ionizing radiation received by that employee from a source not covered by subparagraph (A) that is not distinguishable through reliable documentation from a dose covered by subparagraph (A).(d) Methods for radiation dose reconstructions(1) The President shall, through any Federal agency (other than the Department of Energy) or official (other than the Secretary of Energy or any other official within the Department of Energy) that the President may designate, establish by regulation methods for arriving at reasonable estimates of the radiation doses received by an individual specified in subparagraph (B) of section 7384l(9) of this title at a facility specified in that subparagraph by each of the following employees:(A) An employee who was not monitored for exposure to radiation at such facility.(B) An employee who was monitored inadequately for exposure to radiation at such facility.(C) An employee whose records of exposure to radiation at such facility are missing or incomplete.(2) The President shall establish an independent review process using the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health to—(A) assess the methods established under paragraph (1); and(B) verify a reasonable sample of the doses established under paragraph (1).(e) Information on radiation doses(1) The Secretary of Energy shall provide, to each covered employee with cancer specified in section 7384l(9)(B) of this title, information specifying the estimated radiation dose of that employee during each employment specified in section 7384l(9)(B) of this title, whether established by a dosimetry reading, by a method established under subsection (d), or by both a dosimetry reading and such method.(2) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Energy shall each make available to researchers and the general public information on the assumptions, methodology, and data used in establishing radiation doses under subsection (d). The actions taken under this paragraph shall be consistent with the protection of private medical records.(Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [div. C, title XXXVI, § 3623], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–502; Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, § 3168(b), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2190.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 7(b) of the Orphan Drug Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(3)(A), is section 7(b) of Pub. L. 97–414, which is set out in a note under section 241 of this title.

Executive Order No. 12344, referred to in subsec. (c)(4)(A), is set out as a note under section 6102 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

Amendments

2004—Subsec. (c)(4). Pub. L. 108–375 added par. (4).

Executive DocumentsDelegation of Functions

For delegation of certain functions of the President under this section, see Ex. Ord. No. 13179, Dec. 7, 2000, 65 F.R. 77487, set out as a note under section 7384 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 569 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 569 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009). “115 (b); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7384n (stating causation standards).”
Hayward v. United States Dep't of Labor, 536 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2008). “See 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b). The OWCP bases its probability calculation on an interactive-computer-software program specifically designed for adjudication of claims under Part B of the Act, the NIOSH-IREP.”
Willingham v. Dep't of Labor, 475 F. Supp. 2d 607 (N.D. Tex. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7384n(b)-(c)(1); 20 C.F.R.”
Stephens v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 571 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.D.C. 2008). “42 U.S.C. § 7384n. Part E of the EEOICPA provides compensation to employees of DOE contractors only if they developed an illness due to exposure at a “DOE facility.”
Opal Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 560 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). “115 (b); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7384n (stating causation standards).”
David Hous. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Ky. 2018). “42 U.S.C. § 7384n(a). This concluded the district office's investigation of Houston's Part B claim for CBD, as his sarcoidosis diagnosis was clearly not a misdiagnosis for CBD and he presented no new evidence establishing the statutory criteria necessary to prevail on a Part B…”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2020). · cites it 5× “HHS interprets the term “reasonable estimates” in 42 U.S.C § 7384n to mean “estimates calculated using a substantial basis of fact and the application of science-based, logical assumptions to supplement or interpret the factual basis.”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2021). · cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 7384n(d). The second method is to establish that the employee contracted one of twenty-two specified types of cancer and is a member of the “Special Exposure Cohort” (“SEC”)—meaning the employee worked at particular covered facilities during specific periods of time.”
Reif v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2026). · cites it 3× “See 42 U.S.C. § 7384n (requiring the OWCP to follow the guidelines and use the dose reconstruction established by the Institute); see also 42 C.”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 2× “213; see 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b). For the third criterion, causation, OWCP relies on dose reconstructions prepared by NIOSH.”
Still v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2020). “See 42 U.S.C. § 7384n; 42 C.F.R. § 81.6 . If the probability of causation is equal to or greater than fifty percent, it is “at least as likely as not” that exposure to radiation at a DOE facility caused the cancer, and therefore the claimant is eligible for compensation.”
Opal Harger v. Dep't of Labor (9th Cir. 2009). “115 (b); see also 42 U.S.C. § 7384n (stating causation standards).”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(a) — 1 case
David Hous. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Ky. 2018). “42 U.S.C. § 7384n(a). This concluded the district office's investigation of Houston's Part B claim for CBD, as his sarcoidosis diagnosis was clearly not a misdiagnosis for CBD and he presented no new evidence establishing the statutory criteria necessary to prevail on a Part B…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b) — 5 cases
Hayward v. United States Dep't of Labor, 536 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2008). “See 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b). The OWCP bases its probability calculation on an interactive-computer-software program specifically designed for adjudication of claims under Part B of the Act, the NIOSH-IREP.”
Willingham v. Dep't of Labor, 475 F. Supp. 2d 607 (N.D. Tex. 2007). “See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7384n(b)-(c)(1); 20 C.F.R.”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2018). “213; see 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b). For the third criterion, causation, OWCP relies on dose reconstructions prepared by NIOSH.”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2020). “HHS interprets the term “reasonable estimates” in 42 U.S.C § 7384n to mean “estimates calculated using a substantial basis of fact and the application of science-based, logical assumptions to supplement or interpret the factual basis.”
Reif v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2026). “See 42 U.S.C. § 7384n (requiring the OWCP to follow the guidelines and use the dose reconstruction established by the Institute); see also 42 C.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(c)(1) — 1 case
Willingham v. Dep't of Labor, 475 F. Supp. 2d 607 (N.D. Tex. 2007). “See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7384n(b)-(c)(1); 20 C.F.R.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(d) — 2 cases
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2021). “42 U.S.C. § 7384n(d). The second method is to establish that the employee contracted one of twenty-two specified types of cancer and is a member of the “Special Exposure Cohort” (“SEC”)—meaning the employee worked at particular covered facilities during specific periods of time.”
Reif v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2026). “See 42 U.S.C. § 7384n (requiring the OWCP to follow the guidelines and use the dose reconstruction established by the Institute); see also 42 C.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(d)(1) — 3 cases
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2018). “213; see 42 U.S.C. § 7384n(b). For the third criterion, causation, OWCP relies on dose reconstructions prepared by NIOSH.”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2020). “HHS interprets the term “reasonable estimates” in 42 U.S.C § 7384n to mean “estimates calculated using a substantial basis of fact and the application of science-based, logical assumptions to supplement or interpret the factual basis.”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor (D.D.C. 2021). “42 U.S.C. § 7384n(d). The second method is to establish that the employee contracted one of twenty-two specified types of cancer and is a member of the “Special Exposure Cohort” (“SEC”)—meaning the employee worked at particular covered facilities during specific periods of time.”
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.