U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart G— Insurance and Annuities › Chapter CHAPTER 81— COMPENSATION FOR WORK INJURIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERALLY

5 U.S.C. § 8108

Reduction of compensation for subsequent injury to same member

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
The period of compensation payable under the schedule in section 8107(c) of this title is reduced by the period of compensation paid or payable under the schedule for an earlier injury if—(1) compensation in both cases is for disability of the same member or function or different parts of the same member or function or for disfigurement; and(2) the Secretary of Labor finds that compensation payable for the later disability in whole or in part would duplicate the compensation payable for the preexisting disability.In such a case, compensation for disability continuing after the scheduled period starts on expiration of that period as reduced under this section.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 538; Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(51), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 210.)

Historical and Revision Notes

1966 Act

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 755(c).

Oct. 14, 1949, ch. 691, § 104 “Sec. 5(c)”, 63 Stat. 857.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

1967 Act

Section of title 5

Source (U.S.Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

8108

5 App.: 755(c).

July 4, 1966, Pub. L. 89–488, § 2(c), 80 Stat. 252.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesPersonnel Not Affected by 1967 Increase

Increases authorized under amendment by Pub. L. 90–83 not applicable to specified personnel, see section 7 of Pub. L. 90–83, set out as a note under section 8103 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1979–1999 · leading case: Ashok K. Avasthi v. United States, 608 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ashok K. Avasthi v. United States, 608 F.2d 1059 (5th Cir. 1979). “The government answered that the claim was barred because Avasthi’s exclusive remedy is the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8108 et seq. (FECA). FECA applies to injuries sustained “while in the performance of [an employee’s] duty.”
Coffey v. United States, 939 F. Supp. 185 (E.D.N.Y 1996). “5 U.S.C. §§ 8108 et seq. (1988). FECA provides: The liability of the United States or an instrumentality thereof under this sub-chapter or any extension thereof with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United…”
Soeken v. Herman, 35 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 1999). “OWCP rejected this request, however, stating that because Soeken was a psychotherapist, he didn’t qualify as a probative witness under the statutory definition of relevant medical evidence pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8108 (2) and as clarified in the Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual at…”
Thaddeus Hardy v. United States Postal Serv., 76 F.3d 366 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “Hardy were to litigate his discrimination claim and prevail on the merits, the fact that he is receiving OWCP benefits precludes him from collecting compensatory damages, citing 5 U.S.C. § 8108 et seq. This issue was not explored before the Board, and there is insufficient basis…”
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.