20 C.F.R. § 10.503
Under what circumstances may OWCP reduce or terminate compensation benefits?
Once OWCP has advised the employee that it has accepted a claim and has either approved continuation of pay or paid medical benefits or compensation, benefits will not be terminated or reduced unless the weight of the evidence establishes that:
(a) The disability for which compensation was paid has ceased;
(b) The disabling condition is no longer causally related to the employment;
(c) The employee is only partially disabled;
(d) The employee has returned to work;
(e) The beneficiary was convicted of fraud in connection with a claim under the FECA, or the beneficiary was incarcerated based on any felony conviction; or
(f) OWCP's initial decision was in error.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Purser v. United States Dep't of Labor, 943 F. Supp. 898 (M.D. Tenn. 1996).
Purser v. United States Dep't of Labor, 943 F. Supp. 898 (M.D. Tenn. 1996). “The specific calculations to be used in applying this statute- are set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 10.503 . The regulation explains that reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses are deducted from the gross amount of settlement'.”
NALC Health Benefit Plan v. Lunsford, 879 F. Supp. 760 (E.D. Mich. 1995). “5 Lunsford submits that 20 C.F.R. § 10.503 (a)-(e) limits the amount of the reimbursement that NHBP can demand from her.”
Edward W. Ostrowski v. The United States Dep't of Labor, Off. of Workers Comp. Programs, 653 F.2d 229 (6th Cir. 1981). “20 C.F.R. § 10.503 (1980). The regulation is obviously designed to prevent injustice to the federal employee in *231 an instance where recovery from a third party, by dint of attorney fees or other costs, would have been entirely or substantially wiped out by the FECA claim.”
Ostrowski v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese, Etc., 479 F. Supp. 200 (E.D. Mich. 1979). “§ 8149 : “The Secretary may prescribe rules and regulations necessary for the.administration and enforcement of this subchapter.”
Lorenzetti, Paul B. v. United States, 710 F.2d 982 (3rd Cir. 1983). “After discussing the language of the statute itself and noting the legislatively authorized interpretation rendered by the Secretary of Labor, 20 C.F.R. § 10.503 , the court in Ostrowski concluded that any damages recovered by the employee were subject to a government lien.”
Lorenzetti v. United States, 550 F. Supp. 997 (E.D. Pa. 1982). “Moreover, additional support for a broad reading of the FECA reimbursement provision is found in the plain language of that provision’s regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 10.503 , as well as its legislative history.”
Terri Smith v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2024). “IAF, Tab 9 at 48-49; see 20 C.F.R. § 10.503 . The appellant both sought review of the district office’s decision under 20 C.”
In re Dixon, 132 B.R. 16 (S.D. Ohio 1991). “503 specifically provides a formula by which the beneficiary may determine those funds the employee is obligated to reimburse the Government as a result of an award from a third party tortfeasor. In the event that the beneficiary under § 8131 prosecutes his third party…”
United States v. Jackson, 577 F. Supp. 901 (W.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 8132 ; 20 C.F.R. § 10.503 . See 653 F.2d at 230-31 ; 479 F.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.