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

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
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. Docket Nos. 15, 21
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1996

Purser v. United States Department of Labor

Applicant, Agent Purser, a federal employee, was injured in 1984 and received workers' compensation benefits under FECA. After a third-party settlement, the OWCP sought reimbursement, leading to disputes over settlement allocation between his leg and abdominal injuries, and the calculation of attorney's fees. The District Court reviewed the ECAB's decision on these matters. The Court determined that the term "same injury" in FECA Section 8132 requires allocation of a third-party settlement when distinct injuries are involved, rejecting ECAB's broad interpretation. However, the Court upheld ECAB's interpretation of "compensation" and "reasonable attorney's fee" under the statute. This ruling partially granted both the plaintiff's and defendant's motions for summary judgment, and the parties were directed to submit briefs for calculations based on these conclusions.

Workers' CompensationFECARecoupmentSubrogation RightsThird-Party SettlementInjury AllocationAttorney's FeesJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationOWCP
References
12
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
Apr 02, 1997

United States v. Machi

Salvatore Machi, a former food service foreman, received over $122,000 in worker's compensation payments for a back injury from 1990 to 1996 while operating limousine businesses. He misrepresented his employment status on OWCP forms. The case concerns the appropriate offense level under Sentencing Guidelines for conspiracy and substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1920. The dispute centers on whether Mr. Machi's conduct before September 30, 1994, was criminalized under the pre-amendment version of Section 1920, which applied only to reports "required by section 8106" of title 5. The judge adopted the defendant's argument that, as a temporarily totally disabled individual, section 8106 did not require him to file the forms, thus the pre-amendment statute did not apply to his conduct. Consequently, the loss amount for guideline determination was reduced, resulting in a lower offense level and a sentence of one month imprisonment, two years supervised release, and $40,000 restitution.

Sentencing GuidelinesWorker's Compensation Fraud18 U.S.C. § 1920 AmendmentFalse StatementsFederal Employees Compensation ActTemporarily Totally DisabledSection 8106 RequirementOffense Level CalculationRestitution OrderSupervised Release
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Carpentieri

The Government sued Frank Carpentieri under the False Claims Act and federal common law, alleging he made false statements regarding his medical history in his employment application to the United States Postal Service and subsequent disability benefit applications. Carpentieri filed cross-motions to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under FECA's preclusion-of-review provision (5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)) and failure to state a claim. The District Court denied Carpentieri's 12(b)(1) cross-motion regarding the False Claims Act claims, reserving judgment on federal common law claims, and denied the 12(b)(6) cross-motion. The court ruled that § 8128(b) does not bar the court from hearing the Government’s False Claims Act claims, distinguishing between reviewing the OWCP's benefit determination and inquiring into fraudulent conduct. Consideration of the Government's summary judgment motion was postponed pending supplemental briefs on damages.

False Claims ActFECAFraudDisability BenefitsEmployment ApplicationMedical HistoryJurisdictional DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Common LawPreclusion of Review
References
16
Showing 1-6 of 6 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