U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 84— DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XVI— ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM › Part Part C— Treatment, Coordination, and Forfeiture of Compensation and Benefits

42 U.S.C. § 7385c

Exclusivity of remedy against the United States and against contractors and subcontractors

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In generalThe liability of the United States or an instrumentality of the United States under this subchapter with respect to a cancer (including a specified cancer), chronic silicosis, covered beryllium illness, or death related thereto of a covered employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability—(1) of—(A) the United States;(B) any instrumentality of the United States;(C) a contractor that contracted with the Department of Energy to provide management and operation, management and integration, or environmental remediation of a Department of Energy facility (in its capacity as a contractor);(D) a subcontractor that provided services, including construction, at a Department of Energy facility (in its capacity as a subcontractor); and(E) an employee, agent, or assign of an entity specified in subparagraphs (A) through (D);(2) to—(A) the covered employee;(B) the covered employee’s legal representative, spouse, dependents, survivors, and next of kin; and(C) any other person, including any third party as to whom the covered employee, or the covered employee’s legal representative, spouse, dependents, survivors, or next of kin, has a cause of action relating to the cancer (including a specified cancer), chronic silicosis, covered beryllium illness, or death, otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States, the instrumentality, the contractor, the subcontractor, or the employee, agent, or assign of one of them,because of the cancer (including a specified cancer), chronic silicosis, covered beryllium illness, or death in any proceeding or action including a direct judicial proceeding, a civil action, a proceeding in admiralty, or a proceeding under a tort liability statute or the common law.(b) Applicability

This section applies to all cases filed on or after October 30, 2000.

(c) Workers’ compensation

This section does not apply to an administrative or judicial proceeding under a Federal or State workers’ compensation law.

(d) Applicability to part E

This section applies with respect to part E to the covered medical condition or covered illness or death of a covered DOE contractor employee on the same basis as it applies with respect to part B to the cancer (including a specified cancer), chronic silicosis, covered beryllium illness, or death of a covered employee.

(Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [div. C, title XXXVI, § 3644], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–509; Pub. L. 108–375, div. C, title XXXI, § 3162(d), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2186.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–375 added subsec. (d).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2015–2020 · leading case: Hobson v. Zep, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hobson v. Zep, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Faine v. Zep, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Torre v. Associated Universities, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Yuhas v. Associated Universities, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Marino v. Brookhaven Sci. Assocs., L.L.C. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
McGowan v. Associated Universities, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Geralynn Barner v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (8th Cir. 2015). “471, 475 (1994), we conclude that the dismissal was proper, see 42 U.S.C. § 7385c; United States v. Demko, 385 U.”
Barner v. United States Dep't of Energy, 607 F. App'x 613 (8th Cir. 2015). “2d 308 (1994), we conclude that the dismissal was proper, see 42 U.S.C. § 7385c; United States v. Demko, 385 U.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a) — 6 cases
Hobson v. Zep, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Faine v. Zep, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Torre v. Associated Universities, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Yuhas v. Associated Universities, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
Marino v. Brookhaven Sci. Assocs., L.L.C. (E.D.N.Y 2020). “42 U.S.C. § 7385c(a). Counsel for all plaintiffs contend, however, that because the employer- defendants acted in contravention of government directives and, at least arguably, in violation of law, they acted outside their capacity as contractors or subcontractors, and…”
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.