PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOWnn PART B EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD CASES Medical Evidence: Appellant had extensive medical examinations during 1966 and 1968. She also had psychiatric examinations in 1968 which revealed that she has an emotional condition, but the examining psychiatrist did not relate it to her employment. (Nos. 47 - 49) CASE NO. 47 In the Matter of and Department of the Air Force 22 ECAB 5 T\'pe ofInjury: General Disability; Numbness in Arms. Headache, Nervousness, Backaches, Difficulty in Walking and Other Sympt oms. ECAB’s Decision: (1) BEC’s Denial on the ground that claim was barred by Statute of Limitations: Affirmed. (2) BEC’s Dental of causal connection between iil health and employment: Affirmed. Date of Decision: 1970. Appellant’s Allegations: That claim was timely filed and that her ill health was caused by exposure to radium during employment. Facts: Appellant was employed as a mechanic’s helper from January 25,1951 until May 26, 1952, when she resigned because of ill health. More than 14 years later, on November 29, 1966 she wrote to the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation requesting compensation benefits for disabili ty beginning May 26, 1952 which she alleged was due to radiation exposur e at the employing establishment. Appellant alleged that she was exposed to radium in handling cleaning, and inspecting radium painted dials on instrum ents and panel boards. She stated that she thought she had a condition due to exposur e to radiation at work when she saw her personal physician on April 15, 1952 and complained of numbness in the arms, headaches, nervousness, backach es, difficulty in walking and other symptoms. The doctor's records confirm appellan t's April 15, 1952 visit. At that time she told him that a blood test made at the employing establishment indicated a reaction to radium, but that she did not at 146 any time tell her supervisors that she believed that she had an injury due to radiation exposure. The employing establishment’s files did not contain any written notification prior to November 1966 in which appellant asserted an employment injury due to radiation exposure. Her explanation for the delay in filing a claim was that she was too ill and that the employing establishment did not counsel her properly. She contended that the employing establishment should have taken the necessary steps to assure her receipt of compensation benefits. The evidence established that the instrument and panel board dials were coated with a clear lacquer or shellac and were in air-tight glass covered containers, and that it was unlikely that radium painted dials were in use or were processed at the employing establishment during the period of appellant’s employment there. ECAB’s Decision: The Board found that appellant's claim for disability was barred by the 5-year time limitations provisions of 5 USC Sec. 8122, and it said. Under the time limitation provisions of the Act, a claim for disability compensation is barred if it is not filed within 5 years after the injury. The term “injury” includes a disease proximately caused by the emptoyment.' In cases of disease, the statutury period for giving notice of injury and filing a claim commences to run when the employeefirst becomes aware, or reasonably should be aware, of the condition and its possible relation to the employment.” Fhe evidence in the record establishes that in April 1952 appellant related her disabling condition to her employment. Under the circumstances, the time for ptving notice of injury and filing a claim for disability compensation began to run at that time. Appellant did not file a claim until November 1966, more than 14 yearslater. The S-year period prescribed by the Act for filing a claim is a mandatory, maximum period which may not be waived by the Bureau or the Board, regardless of the reasons underlying the failure to file on time.> Knowledge of an employee's illness is not sufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of 5 USC Sec. 8119, it must be shown that the circumstances were such so as to put the immediate superior on notice that the alleged illness or impairment was causally related to his employment orthat he attributed it to his emptoyment.‘ 5 USC § 8 OI(5). 2 Veston H. Casey, 9 ECAB 901; Gladys F. Skolnick, 13 ECAB 439; Kathleen T. Liscum, 15 ECAB 348; Alvin FE, Hollister, 16 ECAB 617, ? Patricia A, Pembroke, 4 ECAB 648, Ralph M, Buckley, 7 ECAB 79; Marion A. Cramer, 9 ECAB 900; Joseph L. Codella, 10 ECAB 578; Avelino L. Franco, 20 ECAB 14. * Arthur L. Tucker, 1! ECAB 274; James W. Jeffrey, 16 ECAB 112; Luther E. Bates, £6 FCAB 658; Kenneth A. Downey, 17 ECAB 693, Fred R. Walsh, 18 ECAB 96. PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED Meme ee eee 147