Notes of Decisions
Stephens v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 571 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.D.C. 2008).
“42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12). Because Stephens does not have sufficient evidence that these contracts exist, this court need not reach the issue of whether these contracts qualify as management and operation or management and integration contracts.”
Lahndorff v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 826 (W.D. Ky. 2017).
“42 U.S.C. § 7384l(1), (7). When documentation establishes employment at a DOE facility during a period of time when beryllium dust, particles or vapor may have been present, an employee's exposure to beryllium is presumed.”
David Hous. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Ky. 2018).
“42 U.S.C § 7384l(13). Under Part E of the Act, a DOE contractor employee can obtain additional benefits due to permanent impairment and/or wage loss due to a covered illness resulting from work-related exposure to toxic substances at a DOE facility.”
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor, No. 2017-2428 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2021).
· cites it 3× “42 U.S.C. § 7384l(14). The Act also authorized the President to designate additional groups of workers as an SEC class if he determines that “(1) it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the class received; and (2) there is a reasonable…”
Still v. United States Dep't of Labor, No. 2017-1420 (D.D.C. Apr. 13, 2020).
“See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7384l– 7384w-1. An individual seeking compensation and benefits under EEOICPA must file a claim with the DOL’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”).”
Reif v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 2023-3689 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2026).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(9)(A).2 Under the second pathway, an employee can establish eligibility by showing that (1) he has been diagnosed with cancer, (2) he contracted that cancer after beginning work at certain facilities, (3) the “cancer was at least as likely as not related to…”
42 U.S.C. § 7384l(1): 1 case
Lahndorff v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 826 (W.D. Ky. 2017).
“42 U.S.C. § 7384l(1), (7). When documentation establishes employment at a DOE facility during a period of time when beryllium dust, particles or vapor may have been present, an employee's exposure to beryllium is presumed.”
42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12): 1 case
Stephens v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 571 F. Supp. 2d 186 (D.D.C. 2008).
“42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12). Because Stephens does not have sufficient evidence that these contracts exist, this court need not reach the issue of whether these contracts qualify as management and operation or management and integration contracts.”
42 U.S.C. § 7384l(13): 1 case
David Hous. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1028 (W.D. Ky. 2018).
“42 U.S.C § 7384l(13). Under Part E of the Act, a DOE contractor employee can obtain additional benefits due to permanent impairment and/or wage loss due to a covered illness resulting from work-related exposure to toxic substances at a DOE facility.”
42 U.S.C. § 7384l(14): 2 cases
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor, No. 2017-2428 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2021).
“42 U.S.C. § 7384l(14). The Act also authorized the President to designate additional groups of workers as an SEC class if he determines that “(1) it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the class received; and (2) there is a reasonable…”
42 U.S.C. § 7384l(9)(A): 2 cases
Young v. United States Dep't of Labor, No. 2017-2428 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 2021).
“42 U.S.C. § 7384l(14). The Act also authorized the President to designate additional groups of workers as an SEC class if he determines that “(1) it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the class received; and (2) there is a reasonable…”
Reif v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 2023-3689 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2026).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(9)(A).2 Under the second pathway, an employee can establish eligibility by showing that (1) he has been diagnosed with cancer, (2) he contracted that cancer after beginning work at certain facilities, (3) the “cancer was at least as likely as not related to…”
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.