QUESTION: Was a “risk analysis” mandated by the Officials regarding the impact to victims before the October 2004 EEOICP Subtitle E amendment was approved?”
Of course, asbestos is a toxic substance and an occupational hazard that can cause debilitating disease and death. It seems that no cost analysis was prepared or established. And, of course the scheme was to deny compensation awards under the tort system or other applicable laws. For nearly five years the members of Congress have heard thousands of complaints regarding the reasons why the EEOICP beneficiaries claims are denied.
---------------
Why I chose the following USDOL Final Adjudication Board decision as an example of the department employees’ poor judgment and reasoning in addition to their abuse of discretion. This particular USDOL report represents incredible evidence that incriminates and discloses the department employees’ reckless and libelous behavior. The department’s Final Adjudication Board’s decisions depicts certain of the same qualifying medical conditions that my daughter and I disclosed and verified with the release of our medical records to the departments. My daughter and I have battled with the defendants for several decades. Since August 2001, the employees simply choose to ignore our claims. The EEOICPA entitlement is controlled by “defendants” who choose to inflict their decades-old vendettas. Serious conflicts of interest should have caused the department employees to recuse themselves.
Then, the following disclosure is meant to demonstrate how the unqualified USDOL employees’ “ignorance of the facts before them” adversely affects the Rule of Law. The employees admit in this report that they wholly believe they are delegated to interpret the Rule of Law and science applications. Since the turn of the century, exposure to asbestos fibres has been recognized as an occupational health hazard. Asbestos dust may be brought home on the hair, skin, clothing, etc. of the asbestos worker. Consequently, the family members are “at increased risk” for developing an asbestos exposure disease.
---------------
EXHIBIT 24 discloses that the claimant reported the medical consequences of his/her exposure to asbestos and silica. It makes no sense that the delegated department “hearing officer(s)” deliberately abused their discretion when they designated that asbestos and silica toxins are not recognized occupational hazards.
