5 U.S.C. § 8106
Partial 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 word “remuneration” is omitted as covered by the word “earnings”.
Administration of this subchapter was transferred to the Secretary of Labor by section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 19, 64 Stat. 1271 (see section 8145).
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 39
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Jessie v. Potter, 516 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008).
Jessie v. Potter, 516 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2008). “5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c)(2). On February 2, 2000, the Postal Service offered Jessie a position as a modified letter carrier.”
Deonne R. New v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 142 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c)(1). The OWCP further found that Ms.”
Marjorie A. Meester v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster Gen., United States Postal Serv., 149 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 1998). “” 5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c). The Department, acting pursuant to that authority, reviewed the alternative position proposed by the Postal Service and concluded it was within Meester’s abilities.”
United States v. Prentice Harold Dawkins, 202 F.3d 711 (4th Cir. 2000). “” 5 U.S.C.A. § 8106 (b) (West 1996). The statute concerning total disability benefits, in contrast, does not include similar language, or indeed any language implying an ongoing reporting requirement.”
United States v. Arcadipane, 41 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1994). “5 U.S.C. § 8106 (b) (1988). 5 . One proposed instruction dealt with generic good faith in completing the forms.”
United States v. Leo J. Dorey, Jr., 711 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1983). “” We must reverse the judgment because the government failed to prove that Dorey was required to file a report under 5 U.S.C. § 8106 , as charged in the indictment.”
United States v. Frank De Rosa, 783 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir. 1986). “§ 1001 by falsely making a report required by 5 U.S.C. § 8106 . Holding that section 8106 did not apply to temporarily totally disabled persons, this court concluded that the government could not establish as a matter of law that Dorey was in fact required to report under…”
Velazquez-Rivera v. Danzig, 234 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 2000). “See 5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c)(2) (“A partially disabled employee who .”
Bruce A. Bracey v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 236 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “See 5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 10.515 (b).”
Nurriddin v. Acosta, 327 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “517 (a) ); accord 5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c). OWCP may also suspend or terminate compensation where a claimant "refuses to submit to," or "obstructs" a medical examination.”
Taylor v. Garrett, 820 F. Supp. 933 (E.D. Pa. 1993). “See 5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c); 20 C.F.R. § 10.124 (c), (e).”
Taylor v. Sec'y of the Navy, 852 F. Supp. 343 (E.D. Pa. 1994). “5 The Secretary’s role in determining the suitability of offers of reemployment arises under 5 U.S.C. § 8106 (c)(2), which provides that a partially disabled employee who refuses or neglects to work after suitable work is offered to him is not entitled to compensation.”
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.