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. § 8128

Review of award

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. The Secretary, in accordance with the facts found on review, may—(1) end, decrease, or increase the compensation previously awarded; or(2) award compensation previously refused or discontinued.(b) The action of the Secretary or his designee in allowing or denying a payment under this subchapter is—(1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and(2) not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise.Credit shall be allowed in the accounts of a certifying or disbursing official for payments in accordance with that action.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 545.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

(a)

5 U.S.C. 787.

Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, § 37, 39 Stat. 749.

 

 

June 5, 1924, ch. 261, § 1, 43 Stat. 389.

(b)

5 U.S.C. 793 (penultimate sentence of 5th par.).

July 28, 1945, ch. 328, § 4 (penultimate sentence), 59 Stat. 504.

In subsection (a), the words “If the original claim for compensation has been made within the time specified in section 770 of this title” are omitted as surplusage. The words “an award for or against payment of compensation” are coextensive with and, for clarity and consistency with section 8124, substituted for “the award”. The second sentence of former section 787 is omitted as included in the penultimate sentence of former section 793, which is carried into subsection (b). The last sentence of former section 787 is omitted as executed.

In subsection (b), the word “official” is substituted for “officer” because of the definition of “officer” in section 2104 which excludes a member of a uniformed service.

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 of the report.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 304 cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Gregory R. Czerkies v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 73 F.3d 1435 (7th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gregory R. Czerkies v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 73 F.3d 1435 (7th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “” 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b). We ordered the case to be heard en banc, in accordance with our Circuit Rule 40(e), in order to consider — more precisely, given Marozsan v.”
Kerrigan v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 833 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “While we disagree with the Board that 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b) bars its review of Mr.”
Mathirampuzha v. Potter, 548 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b). But cf. United States v.”
Patricia Wise v. Robert Wilkie, 955 F.3d 430 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “” 15 But Wise argues that 5 U.S.C. § 8128 precludes the district court from asserting jurisdiction.”
Gallucci v. Chao, 374 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 6× “” 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (a) (2000). Upon review under section 8128 if the Secretary finds that the wage-earning capacity of the individual would probably have increased but for the injury, the Secretary shall recalculate prospectively the monetary compensation payable for disability…”
Lindahl v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768 (1985). · cites it 2× “, 5 U. S. C. § 8128 (b) (compensation for work injuries) ("The action of the Secretary [of Labor] or his designed in allowing or denying a payment under this subchapter is — (1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and (2) not…”
Deborah Katz Pueschel v. United States, 297 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 4× “The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion on the ground that 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b) precludes judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of Labor allowing or denying payments pursuant to FECA.”
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “13 (1985) (recognizing that 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b) precludes all review of the Secretary of Labor’s compensa- tion decision under the Federal Employee Compensation Act); Collins v.”
Francis Daniel Paluca v. Sec'y of Labor, Francis Daniel Paluca v. Sec'y of Labor, 813 F.2d 524 (1st Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b). Appellants contend that, notwithstanding this language, district courts may review general policies or rules relating to FECA eligibility, both on statutory and on constitutional grounds.”
Hall v. Dep't of Labor, 289 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “DOL now moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claim, arguing that FECA precludes judicial review, under 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b), and the *95 plaintiff's "attempts to circumvent FECA's judicial preclusion" are unavailing.”
Nurriddin v. Acosta, 327 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “Significantly for purposes of this case, "[j]udicial review of determinations under FECA [is generally] precluded under 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b)." Id. ; see also Lockheed Aircraft Corp.”
James L. Hanauer v. Robert B. Reich, 82 F.3d 1304 (4th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “” 5 U.S.C. § 8128 (b). Therefore, the district court’s order remanding this case to the Secretary is final and immediately appealable for purposes of 28 U.”
Show all 304 citing cases →
5 U.S.C. § 8128(b): 3 cases
Werner R. Staacke v. United States Sec'y of Labor, 841 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1988).
Bullock v. Dep't of Vets. AffairsJohn J. Pershing VA Med. Ctr., No. 1:25-cv-00118 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 12, 2025).
Hanauer v. Reich, Sec, No. 95-2499 (4th Cir. May 6, 1996).
5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(2): 1 case
Kyle v. Brennan, No. 1:17-cv-05257 (N.D. Ill. July 2, 2018).
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.