John A. Concordia v. The United States Postal Serv., an Exec. Sub-Div. of the United States of Am., 585 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
John A. Concordia v. The United States Postal Serv., an Exec. Sub-Div. of the United States of Am., 585 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tippetts v. United States (ca10, 2002-10-02)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#7 5 U.S.C. § 8122 cited 1× in this case · 13 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Tippetts v. United States
10th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Concordia v. United States Postal Serv., 585 F.2d 731, 732 (5th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see" Scalia v. United States
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Concordia v. United States Postal Service, 581 F.2d 439 , reh. denied, 585 F.2d 731 (5th Cir. 1978); Bailey v. United States, 451 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1971); Daniels-Lumley v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 162 , 306 F.2d 769 (D.C.Cir. 1962); Somma v. United States, 283 F.2d 149 (3rd Cir. 1960).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John A. CONCORDIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, an Executive Sub-Division of the United States of America, Defendant-Appellee
76-3587, 76-3662.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 4, 1978.
585 F.2d 731
Robert Orseck, Joel D. Eaton, Rossman & Baumberger, Stephen F. Rossman, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., Robert W. Rust, Jack V. Eskenazi, U. S. Attys., Miami, Fla., Leonard Schaitman, Asst. Chief, Appellate Section, John F. Cordes, Jr., Ronald R. Glancz, Attys., Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee.
Brown, Thorn-Berry, Clark.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

Appellant John Concordia seeks rehearing and clarification of this Court’s opinion in Concordia v. United States, 5 Cir., 1978,[*732] 581 F.2d 439. While he does not challenge the correctness of our basic holding, he asks that we further hold that his filing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) [1] tolled the running of the five-year period within which the Secretary of Labor may waive compliance with the statute of limitations [2] for claims brought under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA). [3] Notwithstanding the strong equities involved in Mr. Concordia’s case, we do not have the power to grant expressly the relief he presently requests. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.

We emphasize, however, the holding in our original opinion, that the Secretary must, regardless of whether he .ultimately allows the claim, [4] determine on its merits whether the FTCA or the FECA covers Mr. Concordia’s injury. This is not a determination by the Secretary after he has potentially lost all power over the case, for our holding is that he must determine whether the FTCA or FECA covers this claim. The later potential question of whether to allow the claim under the FECA is left to the Secretary.

1

. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671 et seq.

2

. 5 U.S.C.A. § 8122.

3

. 5 U.S.C.A. § 8101 et seq.

4

. Cf. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 1974, 414 U.S. 538, 558, 38 L.Ed.2d 713, 729, 94 S.Ct. 756, 768; Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 13 L.Ed.2d 941, 85 S.Ct. 1050.