chronic arthritis generally throughout his body. The right knee was fused because of arthritis. I am sure that he has not had any particular treatment for his ear condition in the last few months." On May 7, 1974, the Assistant Medical Director of the Office, after reviewing the report of Dr. Toffelmier, stated that there was no explanation for the confusion of mind which appellant claimed would have prevented him from filing his claim within the time required. By letter decision of May 10, 1974, the decision of January 21, 1974 was mde final. In a case involving a claim for an oocupational hearing loss, the time limitations begin to run when the injured employee becomes aware or reasonably should have been aware of a possible relationship between his hearing loss and his employment.2 The Board finds that the evidence establishes that appellant was aware of a relationship between his hearing loss and the conditions of his employment in October 1967. This finding is supported by ample evidence in the case record. Therefore, the claim, which was not filed until December 1970, is barred by the one year time limitation provision. The Board further finds that the evidence is not sufficient to justify waiver of the one year period of limitations and that appellant's claim for compensation is barred.4 The letter decision of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, dated May 10, 1974, making final its determination of January 21, 1974, is hereby affirmed. 2 Union Small, 25 ECAB 275; Marion H. Salerni, 24 ECAB 300; Chester T. DeMent, 25 ECAB 230. On appeal, appellant's attorney submitted an affidavit by appellant and a statement by the attorney. These documents attack the accuracy of the letters in the case record signed by appellant and his testimony on April 20, 1973, insofar as these statements relate that in 1967 he first became aware of a relationship between his hearing loss and his employment. However, the Board may not take these evidentiary documents into consideration, first submitted on appeal. The Board's Rules of Procedure specifically provide, “The review of a case shall be limited to the evidence in the case record which was before the Office at the time of its final decision." 20 CFR 501.2(c) 4 Union Small, supra. In the Matter of W. J. FERGUSON and DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, Washington, D.C. Medical opinions, competency Case was not in a posture for decision as to whether appellant had more than an 8 percent employment-related hearing loss of his left ear when he contended that a physician had informed him orally that he had a greater loss; the Board will not accept such as competent medical evidence. Burden of proof, in general—Office, nature of Office's function Schedule awards, hearing, loss of-Procedure on appeal to or Case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings where the Docket No. 75-83; Submitted on the Record; Before FLOYD G. ANSLEY, E. GERALD LAMBOLEY, FRED E. STRINE The issues are whether appellant had more than an 8 percent employment-related hearing loss of his left ear, for which he received a schedule award, and whether he had a compensable hearing loss of his right ear. Appellant, a physicist, engaged in research which involved the firing of 22 caliber and 50 caliber guns. From November 1972 to November 1973, an average of 30 shots per day were fired. He was exposed to noise levels of an impulse character ranging from 120 to 136 decibels during the firing of different caliber rounds with varied power charges. He was furnished and wore during the firings a Hear-Guard protector. On June 28, 1973, appellant filed a notice of injury and a claim for a schedule award giving as the cause of injury, "Undetermined. I worked in a high noise level area a large part of the time during the past 8 months but also worked under comparable conditions in the past. Equipment provided by the Safety Branch was used during periods of exposure." In decribing the nature of the injury he stated, “During a hazardous duty physical at NRL on May 1, 1973, tests showed a significant drop in hearing during the past year. I had noticed during the past 30 days that hearing in my left ear was abnormal when using the telephone. Also high fidelity recordings were abnormal." On May 8, 1973, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs referred appellant to the United States Public Health Service Hospital in Washington, D.C. for an evaluation regarding bilateral hearing loss. In a report from Public Health Service dated November 19, 1973 and signed by Dr. Robert Machado, the doctor stated "The air conduction audiogram shows only 1% of hearing impairment on the ANSI calibrated audiometer in the left ear and 3% hearing impairment in the right ear which combines to 1% impairment in both ears. There is no disability in this case because the percentage of hearing impairment in both ears combined is only 1%." The record contains an audiogam made May 15, 1973 for Dr. Machdo, which shows a bilateral hearing loss at frequencies 2,000 and 3,000. Appellant submitted a report dated August 8, 1973 from Dr. M. E. Krucoff, a Board-certified otolaryngologist, in which the doctor stated that appellant had a bilateral sensorineural hearing loss and concluded, "This could result from exposure to loud noise such as gunfire, and Mr. Ferguson has been advised to refrain from target practice or other shooting. If exposure to noise continues, his hearing will probably contnue to deteriorate." In a later report from Dr. Krucoff dated April 12, 1974, he stated that the diagnosis of a bilateral sensorineural hearing loss was made in July 1973. He further stated, "Since that time he has been rechecked several times, but there has been no improvement in his hearing. I believe this to be a permanent hearing loss." Although the Office did not refer appellant to Dr. Krucoff, it paid him for four office visits by appellant and for two hearing evaluations on the appellant. However, there are no audiometric testing results from Dr. Krucoff in the case record. There are several reports of audiometric tests showing varying degrees of hearing loss at 2,000 and 3,000 decibels in the left ear but no ratable loss in the right ear at 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 decibels. The last two audiograms in the case record are dated June 30, 1973 and October 24, 1973. The June 30, 1973 audiogram indicates a hearing loss in the left ear at 2,000 and 3,000 decibels and no ratable loss in the right ear at 1,000, 2,000 and 3,000 decibels. The last audiogram dated October 24, 1973, reflects no ratable hearing loss at 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 decibels in either the left or the right ear. On June 26, 1974, an Office medical adviser concluded that appellant had reached maximum improvement on June 30, 1973, and applying the results of the June 30, 1973 audiogram computed an 8 percent hearing loss, left ear only. On July 5, 1974, the Office issued a compensation order making a schedule award for an 8 percent permanent loss of hearing of the left ear. On appeal, appellant stated that Dr. Krucoff had orally informed him that he had a hearing loss in the left ear of 16 percent and 12 percent in the right ear and further stated that he had authorized the Office to contact the doctor directly and obtain from him a statement for any further desired information. Appellant also said the doctor told him that he had not been asked to provide any such information and had not provided to anyone other than appellant figures on the percentage of hearing loss. In its memorandum in justification, the Office merely pointed out that in Terry A. Wethington,1 the Board had approved the use of certain standards. The Office stated, "An Office medical adviser applied the aforementioned standards to an audiogram taken of appellant to arrive at the 8 percent figure." The Board finds that this case is not in posture for a decision. We will not accept as competent medical evidence statements of appellant concerning findings by a physician which were related orally to appellant.2 Also, the general rule is that appellant has the burden of proving the dgreee of his claimed disability. However, in this case, the Office, having paid Dr. Krucoff, appellant's personal physician, for two separate hearing evaluations, should have obtained and included in the case record the results of those hearing evaluations including audiometric test results. The Office medical adviser applied the proper standards in computing an 8 percent hearing loss in the left ear and in his determination that there was no hearing loss in the right ear, based upon the audiogram of June 30, 1973 which he utilized. However, there is no explanation in the record of why the May 15, 1973 audiogram was not considered. Further, there is no rationale for the determination by the medical adviser that appellant had reached maximum improvement on June 30, 1973, when there is an audiogram in the file made approximately 4 months after that date (October 24, 1973) which indicates no ratable loss of hearing in either ear. 125 ECAB 247. * See Paul W. Kirby, 20 ECAB 300; Richard B. Eddy, 16 ECAB 559; John L. Cardeiro, 13 ECAB 37. The Office should obtain the results of the hearing evaluations made by Dr. Krucoff on July 27, 1973, and on October 16, 1973, for which it paid. It should then refer the case record and appellant to a Board-certified otolaryngologist for a hearing evaluation, including audiometric testing, with instructions to apply the standards previously approved by the Board.3 The compensation order of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs dated July 5, 1974, awarding appellant a schedule award based on an 8 percent loss of hearing, left ear only, is hereby reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings as outlined above. 3 Terry A. Wethington, supra; Kenneth T. Escher, 25 ECAB 335. In the Matter of PERCY E. ROUSE and DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, BROOKLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. Time Limitations, when time begins to run, in general In a case involving a claim for an occupational hearing loss, the time limitations begin to run when the injured employee becomes aware or reasonably should have been aware of a possible relationship between his hearing loss and his employment. In situations where the exposure to injurious noise continues after such knowledge, the time for filing a claim begins to run on the date of the employee's last exposure to such noise. Where an employee becomes aware or reasonably should have been aware that his hearing has been adversely affected by factors of his employment, such awareness is competent to start the running of the time limitations period even though he did not know the precise nature of the impairment or whether the ultimate result of such adverse effect would be a temporary or a permanent hearing loss. Where appellant's statements in the case record clearly established Time Limitations, material prejudice, sufficient cause, sufficient Where the evidence did not show that appellant's failure to file a Time Limitations, material prejudice Appellant's delay in filing his claim resulted in material prejudice |