employment back injury. There is a complete absence in the case record of evidence of bridging symptoms between the 1945 injury and the disability beginning in 1971. There is no evidence in the record that appellant had any back complaints after he returned to work in October 1945 until a year prior to July 1971. The only medical evidence submitted in support of the claim was the report from Dr. Michael N. Harris dated June 12, 1973. That report is speculative, contains no rationale, and is based upon an inaccurate history that appellant fell at the time of the 1945 injury. There is no evidence in the case record of appellant falling at the time of the injury. The claim form he filed and signed on August 6, 1945 makes no mention of a fall but states the cause of the injury as "strain of lifting a 10 gallon can full of milk” and the nature of the injury as "back strain." Therefore, Dr. Harris' report has no probative value.1 The compensation order of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, dated June 20, 1974, is hereby affirmed. Fred E. Strine, Member, concurred in the decision but did not participate in the preparation of the opinion. 'See Wainwright H. Harmon, 26 ECAB 15. In the Matter of SAMUEL MURPHY and DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, HUNTERS POINT NAVAL SHIPYARD, San Francisco, Calif. Schedule awards, hearing, loss of—Medical opinions, weight of Docket No. 75-38; Submitted on the Record; Before FLOYD G. ANSLEY, E. GERALD LAMBOLEY, FRED E. STRINE The issue is whether appellant had more than 8 percent permanent partial loss of monaural hearing, left, for which he received a schedule award. Appellant, a pipefitter, was exposed to excessive job-related noise levels ranging up to 103 decibels over a period of approximately 29 years. Appellant was examined by Dr. William F. Boyle, a Boardcertified otolaryngologist, on April 29, 1974. The doctor stated that the audiogram made for the purpose of his examination revealed evidence of a mild high frequency sensorineural hearing loss, but that "the hearing throughout the speech frequency range in both ears was perfectly normal." A medical adviser of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs examined the audiogram submitted by Dr. Boyle and applied the standardized Office procedures for determining hearing loss, which have been approved by the Board. He properly computed an 8 percent permanent monaural hearing loss of appellant's left ear. By compensation order dated August 12, 1974, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs awarded appellant a schedule award for an 8 percent permanent partial loss of monaural hearing, left. The only evidence submitted by appellant is a letter from Dr. Herbert B. Henderson, a general practitioner, in which he stated that appellant "wishes to appeal the award of compensaion for the injury of February 22, 1974. He was rated 8% for the permanent partial loss of monaural hearing, left ear. His hearing of the left ear is far greater and the condition is growing progressively worse. He also has hypertensive arteriosclerotic heart disease and coronary heart disease." The Board finds that the evidence establishes that appellant had no more than an 8 percent monaural loss of hearing in the left ear, for which he received a schedule award. This was based upon the report and audiogram submitted by Dr. Boyle, a Boardcertified otolaryngologist, to which an Office medical adviser applied the appropriate standards. The statement from Dr. Henderson, a general practitioner, that appellant's hearing loss of the left ear was greater that 8 percent was subjective and not based on the application of any standards or methods of measuring hearing loss, such as the use of audiometric equipment, and as such has no evidentiary value. The compensation order of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs dated August 12, 1974 is hereby affirmed. 1 See Terry A. Wethington, 25 ECAB 247; Kenneth T. Escher, 25 ECAB 335. In the Matter of LISLE E. BLOOD and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. Time limitations, when time begins to run, disease or latent injury The Board has consistently held that under the time limitations Time limitations, mandatory limitations, when time begins to run, The 5-year period is a maximum mandatory provision which may Claims, form and scope-Time limitations, in general An application for retirement under the Civil Service Retirement Docket No. 75-36; Submitted on the Record; Before FLOYD G. ANSLEY, E. GERALD LAMBOLEY, FRED E. STRINE The issue is whether appellant's claim is barred by the maximum time limitation provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act.1 On July 24, 1972, appellant, formerly an equipment mechanic, filed a claim for compensation and notice of injury contending that exposure to high frequency sound resulted in a loss of hearing. He retired on a Civil Service annuity on December 30, 1965, which was the last date on which he could have been exposed to excessive noise levels. In a letter of May 10, 1973 to the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, appellant stated: "I first became aware of a possible loss of hearing in 1953 or 15 U.S.C. 8-101 et seq. 1954 when the Air Force began annual hearing tests for personnel working in areas of sustained high frequency sound. Since the area that I worked in was one of the worst on the Base for high frequency I received annual ear tests from that time until my retirement. "There was no appreciable loss shown in those tests until several years later. Then a gradual loss appeared and grew steadily worse. In 1965 at my annual test I was informed that unless I wanted to go completely deaf, it was necessary for me to either transfer to a quieter area or retire. There were no jobs available in a quieter area so I was forced to apply for retirement. "There was no doubt in my mind or in the Air Force medical examiners that my hearing loss was job connected and they medically retired me in December 1965." By compensation order dated November 27, 1973, appellant's claim was rejected on the ground that it was barred, with respect both to claiming compensation and to giving notice of injury, by the time limitation provisions of the Act. Appellant sought modification of the November 27, 1973 compensation order and in a subsequent compensation order dated May 10, 1974, the Office determined that the evidence submitted in support of the application was not of sufficient probative force to warrant modification of that part of the previous order which denied the claim for monetary benefits because of the 5-year time limitations. However, the Office Director of his own motion vacated that part of the previous order which disallowed the claim for medical care under 5 U.S.C. 8119, and appellant was subsequently informed that he was entitled to consideration of payment of expenses involved in conjunction with his claim. Appellant points out that he retired on disability based upon his loss of hearing. He further stated that he thought the benefits he was receiving from the Civil Service Commission were to compensate him for his loss of hearing and when he learned in 1971 that such benefits were for a different reason, he filed a claim with the Office for a schedule award. The Board finds that the Office properly determined that appellant associated his hearing loss with his employment in September 1965 and that the time limitations began to run on December 30, 1965, the date of his last possible exposure to noise at work. Since his claim was not filed until July 1972, it was barred by the 5-year 25 U.S.C. 8119, 8121, 8122. time limitation provision applicable to his claim. As the Board has previously held, an application for disability retirement under the Civil Service Retirement Act does not constitute a claim for compensation under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act; the filing of an application for retirement is not sufficient to satisfy the time limitations of the latter Act.3 Also, the Board has consistently held that under the time limitations provisions here involved, a claim for disability compensation is barred if a written claim has not been filed within 5 years. The 5-year period is a maximum mandatory provision which may not be waived regardless of the reasons or circumstances for the failure to file a claim within the prescribed time. This statutory period begins to run when the employee is aware or reasonably should be aware of his loss of hearing and its possible relation to his employment, but where his last exposure to noise is subsequent to that date, it begins to run from the date of his last exposure. In the present case, the five year period of limitations expired before appellant filed his claim. The Office properly determined that the employing establishment had actual timely knowledge of appellant's employmentrelated hearing loss, thereby entitling him to consideration for medical benefits for a condition causally related to his employment. 5 The compensation order of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs dated May 10, 1974 is hereby affirmed. Fred E. Strine, Member, concurred in the decision but did not. participate in the preparation of the opinion. 'Lenual M. Parsons, 14 ECAB 500. William S. Meyers, 24 ECAB 194; Marion H. Salerni, 24 ECAB 300; Ida Ambler, 25 ECAB 116; Chester T. DeMent, 25 ECAB 230. Nathan J. Bryant, 20 ECAB 192. In the Matter of BARBARA J. WILSON and VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITAL, Hines, Ill. Encephalitis-Medical opinions, effect, effect of conflict in Case was not in posture for decision where there was a conflict in the medical evidence between medical officers of the Office as to whether appellant's disability from viral meningo-encephalitis was related to her work as an admitting clerk in a hospital. The Office's |