CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Farrell Turner, an employee of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), was killed when he was lost overboard from the Lucy E, a vessel he labored on. His personal representative, Mrs. Turner, filed a Jones Act claim against TVA, alleging negligence and unsafe working conditions. TVA moved to dismiss, arguing that the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) is Mrs. Turner's exclusive remedy, barring her Jones Act claim. The Court analyzed the statutory framework of the TVA Act, FECA, and the Jones Act, along with relevant Supreme Court precedents such as Johansen v. United States and Patterson v. United States. The Court concluded that the FECA is the exclusive remedy for federally employed seamen, despite arguments that the Jones Act should apply. Therefore, the Court granted TVA's motion to dismiss, directing the plaintiff to seek compensation through FECA.

Jones ActFederal Employees Compensation ActSovereign ImmunityMaritime LawSeamen's RightsWorkers' CompensationMotion to DismissExclusive RemedyFederal Employers Liability ActPublic Vessels Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Underwood v. United States Postal Service

The plaintiff, a US Post Office employee, was allegedly verbally attacked by his supervisor, Marjorie Gaddes Boswell, at the Mt. Juliet, Tennessee branch, leading to chest pains, loss of consciousness, and hospitalization. He claims intentional infliction of emotional distress and seeks damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The defendant, the United States of America (substituted for United States Postal Service), moved to dismiss, arguing that the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) is the exclusive remedy for federal employees' injuries. The court reviewed relevant statutes and case law, noting that FECA generally covers 'personal injury' or 'injury by accident' or 'disease proximately caused by the employment.' However, the Sixth Circuit and other courts have indicated that FECA does not apply to claims for mental distress, emotional distress, or humiliation. Therefore, the court found FECA not to be the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff's emotional distress claims and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Federal Tort Claims ActFederal Employees Compensation ActExclusive RemedyEmotional DistressIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressScope of EmploymentSovereign ImmunityMotion to DismissFederal Employee InjuryPostal Service Employee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Luellen v. Henderson

Eddie O. Luellen, an injured USPS employee receiving FECA benefits, filed a Rehabilitation Act claim alleging disability discrimination after refusing a reassignment he deemed inconsistent with his medical limitations. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) initially found the reassignment suitable, terminated his FECA benefits, but later reversed its decision. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) then found the USPS in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant William Henderson, U.S. Postmaster General, moved to dismiss Luellen's request for judicial enforcement of the EEOC decision, arguing that the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) prevents the EEOC and the court from reviewing job suitability determinations made by the Secretary of Labor. The court, referencing Sixth Circuit precedent, concluded that FECA's unreviewability provision (5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)) bars collateral attacks on OWCP suitability decisions, even by the EEOC. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationRehabilitation ActFECASubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissDisability DiscriminationJudicial ReviewEEOC DecisionOWCPFederal Employees
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1982

Palmer v. Allstate Insurance

William D. Palmer and the United States Department of Labor appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied confirmation of an arbitration award. The central issue was whether the arbitrator’s failure to deduct Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) payments from an award of first-party benefits under the New York No-Fault Insurance Law was so irrational as to require vacatur. Palmer, a United States Postal Service employee, had received $28,476.66 in FECA benefits for lost wages and medical expenses following a motor vehicle accident. The arbitrator subsequently awarded Palmer $28,476.60 in no-fault benefits without deducting the FECA payments. The Special Term denied confirmation, ruling that the award constituted an impermissible double recovery, contrary to Insurance Law § 671 (2) (b), and lacked a rational basis. The Appellate Division affirmed the Special Term's judgment, holding that the arbitrator's failure to deduct the FECA payments was irrational and contrary to the plain language of the statute, the Superintendent of Insurance's regulations, and the legislative intent to prevent double recovery for economic loss under the no-fault scheme.

No-Fault Insurance LawArbitration Award ConfirmationFederal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA)Double RecoveryStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review of ArbitrationVacatur of AwardFirst-Party BenefitsAutomobile Insurance ReparationsDeduction of Benefits
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nicholson

Johnny Jermaine Smith, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, sued his former employer under the Privacy Act, alleging unauthorized disclosure of his medical records while he was a patient at a VA hospital. Smith claimed physical and mental injuries due to malicious rumors spread by coworkers at his workplace. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA) provided the exclusive remedy. The court, presided over by District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal, determined there was a "substantial question" as to FECA coverage, particularly given Smith's allegations of workplace injury stemming from the disclosures. Therefore, the court denied the motion to dismiss but abated the case, referring the matter to the Secretary of Labor for a definitive ruling on FECA applicability.

Privacy ActFECAExclusive RemedySubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissCase AbatementUnauthorized DisclosureMedical ConfidentialityWorkplace HarassmentFederal Employees
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 1998

Avedis v. Herman

Russell E. Avedis, a former Labor Department economist, filed a complaint against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor after his federal disability benefits, awarded for a 1988 automobile accident injury, were terminated in 1993. The termination was based on a medical expert's finding that he was no longer disabled. Avedis contended the Secretary violated the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) by not referring him to a third "referee" physician despite a disagreement in medical opinions, and unconstitutionally deprived him of due process. The Secretary moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to FECA's preclusion-of-review provision. The court converted the motion into one for summary judgment, ultimately granting it in favor of the Secretary, finding that the Secretary's interpretation of "disagreement" under FECA Section 8123(a) was plausible and did not constitute a clear statutory mandate violation.

Disability BenefitsFederal Employees’ Compensation ActFECAJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessAdministrative LawSummary JudgmentMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenberger v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) where the plaintiff alleges the defendant, the Government (United States), negligently caused the suicide of her deceased husband, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) employee. The defendant moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that a "substantial question" of coverage exists under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), which mandates that the Secretary of Labor must first determine the plaintiff's rights. Despite FECA typically barring suicide claims, the court found a "substantial question" of FECA applicability, noting that the Department of Labor has previously honored claims where a job-related injury led to mental disturbance and subsequent suicide. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim without prejudice, requiring administrative review by the Secretary of Labor.

Federal Tort Claims ActWrongful DeathSuicideFederal Employees' Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesNegligenceDrug Enforcement AdministrationMental DistressFederal Employment Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hightower v. United States

Willie Hightower, a federal employee, sued the United States and three individual federal officers for alleged injuries from a 1999 arrest at a VA hospital campus. Hightower sought money damages under state tort laws via the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional claims under Bivens, despite having already received benefits under the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA) for the same incident, which he certified as work-related. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It ruled that FECA provides the exclusive remedy for federal employees' work-related injuries, thereby precluding FTCA claims against the United States. Furthermore, Bivens claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity, and against individual federal employees, they are precluded by the comprehensive remedial schemes of FECA and the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA).

Federal Employee Compensation ActFederal Tort Claims ActBivens ActionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionExcessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderLibel
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quevedo v. Postmaster, United States Postal Service

Plaintiff, previously employed by the U.S. Postal Service, sought relief from a March 8, 1989 summary judgment that barred his Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action, ruling Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) as the exclusive remedy. This prior decision was based on the Secretary of Labor's initial determination that his injuries were covered by FECA. However, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) later reversed this position, finding the injuries were not sustained in the course of employment and thus not covered by FECA. The plaintiff then moved to vacate the summary judgment. The court granted the plaintiff's motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), concluding that denying him an FTCA claim would impose undue hardship and effectively uphold a reversed agency decision. Consequently, the summary judgment was vacated, and the action reinstated to the active docket.

Relief from judgmentSummary judgmentFederal Tort Claims ActFederal Employees' Compensation ActOWCP decisionExclusive remedyVacate judgmentRule 60(b)(6)Reinstatement of actionSecond Circuit
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

JM Banks v. United States

Norris JM Banks, a federal employee, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to recover legal and medical expenses. These expenses were incurred after his Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) disability benefits were initially terminated due to an OWCP procedural error involving a conflicted medical examiner. Although OWCP later reinstated his benefits, Banks sought damages for the period of suspension. The District Court granted the Government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court ruled that Banks' claims derived directly from his FECA benefits determination, making FECA the exclusive remedy and precluding judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b). The court found no exception for constitutional claims or clear statutory violations that would allow it to exercise jurisdiction. The case was dismissed without prejudice.

FECAFTCASubject-Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissExclusive RemedyJudicial Review BarDue ProcessAdministrative Procedure ActFederal EmployeesWorkers' Compensation
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 19 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational