5 U.S.C. § 8105
Total disability
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
|
| |
In subsection (a), the words “Except as otherwise provided in sections 751–756, 757–781, 783–791, and 793 of this title” are omitted as surplusage.
In subsection (b), the words “Loss, or” are omitted as included in “loss of use of”. The words “or the loss of sight of both eyes” are substituted for “or both eyes or the sight thereof”.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1983–2010 · leading case: United States v. Arcadipane, 41 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994).
United States v. Arcadipane, 41 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994). “3 He constructs the following syllogism: (1) inasmuch as he was totally disabled during the time frame covered by the indictment, his situation is controlled by 5 U.S.C. § 8105 (a) (which provides in relevant part that, when an employee’s “disability is total, the United States…”
United States v. Thomas M. Kappes, III, 936 F.2d 227 (6th Cir. 1991). “Kappes received temporary total disability payments under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. § 8105 . In April 1989, Kappes filled out a U.”
United States v. Prentice Harold Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711 (4th Cir. 2000). “He was subsequently determined to be totally disabled and began receiving federal employee’s compensation benefits pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 8105 (West 1996). As a condition of continuing to receive the benefits, the Department of Labor required Dawkins to periodically fill out…”
Cletis Meredith Miller v. William Bolger, 802 F.2d 660 (3d Cir. 1986). “5 U.S.C. §§ 8105 , 8124. Thus Miller has not recovered pay for the two periods of temporary wage loss that he alleges resulted from the activities at issue.”
Gerald L. Brumley v. United States Dep't of Labor, 28 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 1994). “Section 8105 does not expressly mention earning capacity or earning reports.”
United States v. Susan Carol FITZGERALD, 147 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 1998). “First, we have observed that “it is implicit in the statutory scheme [of 5 U.S.C. § 8105 ] for the Department [of Labor] to make inquiries to determine whether the disability .”
Norman A. Johnson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 812 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “For instance, an employee who is totally disabled in the line of duty generally receives two-thirds of his former salary under the Compensation Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 8105 (a) (1982), while an employee who does not suffer a job-related injury typically receives only 40 percent of…”
Szedlock v. Tenet, 61 F. App'x 88 (4th Cir. 2003). “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8105 , 8110. At the same time, the statute limits the employee’s ability to recover from the federal government under other statutes.”
Lee v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 36 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “Plaintiff contends that the Navy’s discharge of plaintiff violates 5 U.S.C. § 8105 , and that the Navy has improperly failed to reinstate him, provide medical coverage for his work-related injury, and provide back pay.”
United States v. William C. Austin, 817 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1987). “Appellant argues that this evidence is in conflict with 5 U.S.C. § 8105 and thus could not be properly admitted.”
Donna Olson v. Kenneth S. Apfel, 170 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 1999). “For example, the federal statutes providing worker’s compensation benefits to federal employees expressly tie both scheduled and unscheduled disability benefits to the injured employee’s prior monthly pay.”
Johnson v. Sullivan, 764 F. Supp. 1053 (D. Md. 1991). “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 8105 , 8110. Moreover unlike FECA, under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act reinstatement and attorney’s fees are available.”
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.