38 U.S.C. § 902

DEFINITIONS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

“In this title:“(1) The term ‘controlled substance’ has the meaning given that term in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802).“(2) The term ‘State’ means each of the several States, territories, and possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.“(3) The term ‘complementary and integrative health’ has the meaning given that term, or any successor term, by the National Institutes of Health.“(4) The term ‘opioid receptor antagonist’ means a drug or device approved or cleared under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) for emergency treatment of known or suspected opioid overdose.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases, 1980–2020 · leading case: Melson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 334 (Vet. App. 1991).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Melson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 334 (Vet. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “1600 (b)(1), which in turn is based on 38 U.S.C. § 902 (a)(1) (1988). This statutory provision states that if a veteran’s death is not service-connected, a burial allowance will still be granted if at the time of death [the veteran] was in receipt of compensation (or but for the…”

Pellegrino v. U.S. Transp. SEC. Admin., 896 F.3d 207 (3rd Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “1988) (per curiam) (holding “VA hospital security guards are VA police officers” and thus fall within the scope of § 2680(h)), with 38 U.S.C. § 902 (a) (designating VA police officers as employees); compare Caban, 671 F.”

Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481 (2005). “” In any event, because we have identified a Jones Act “seaman” with reference to the LHWCA’s exclusion, see 38 U. S. C. § 902 (3)(G) (“a master or member of a crew of any vessel”), it is the LHWCA’s use of the term “vessel” that matters.”

Elwood L. See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 36 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 1994). “” 38 U.S.C. § 902 (10) (1988). In distinguishing between total and partial disability, the Act looks primarily at the claimant’s “wage-earning capacity.”

Blanche Brown v. Jenna Mercadante, 687 F. App'x 220 (3rd Cir. 2017). “An “investigative or law enforcement officer” is defined as "any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.” Id. Brown’s malicious prosecution claim stems from the acts or…”

James W. Barker v. United States Dep't of Labor, 138 F.3d 431 (1st Cir. 1998). “See 38 U.S.C. § 902 (10) (defining “disability” — a central concept — as “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury in the same or any other employment”).”

Lockheed Martin Corp., Ace USA v. Lorraine Morganti, Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 412 F.3d 407 (2d Cir. 2005). “Section 3(a) of the Act now provides coverage to employees who suffer disability or death due to an injury incurred on this expanded situs. 33 U.S.C.”

Alvin L. Lundy v. Litton Sys., Inc., 624 F.2d 590 (5th Cir. 1980). “38 U.S.C.A. § 902 (21)(West 1978). Persons entitled to benefits under the LHWCA are “employees.”

Martin v. Halliburton, 808 F. Supp. 2d 983 (S.D. Tex. 2011). “38 U.S.C. § 902 (2). The DBA will encompass the claim if the harm results either from an accidental injury arising out of, and in the course of employment, including the willful act of third parties, because of the employee’s employment.”

Global Mgmt. Enter., L.L.C. v. Com. & Indus. Ins., 539 F. App'x 514 (5th Cir. 2013). “The district court analyzed the issue in a thorough Memorandum Ruling dated January 25, 2013, that examined, inter alia, whether de la Cruz satisfied the situs and status requirements of 38 U.S.C. §§ 902 (3) and 903(a). Part of the inquiry was whether the injury occurred in an…”

Simmons v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, 509 F. App'x 337 (5th Cir. 2013). “Simmons also asserts that this is an action by a seaman “for wages or salvage or the enforcement of laws enacted for [his] health or safety” so it can be prose *340 cuted without prepaying fees or costs or furnishing security therefor.”

Ward v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 684 F.2d 1114 (5th Cir. 1982). “38 U.S.C. § 902 (3). I. We recently held in Boudreaux v.”

Show all 20 citing cases →

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.