Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases, 1980–2012 · leading case:
In re Howell, 4 B.R. 102 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1980).
In re Howell, 4 B.R. 102 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1980).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8129 (a) 1 a determination of overpayment was made and pursuant to regulations it was determined that $400 monthly should be withheld from debtor’s monthly disability benefits.”
United States v. Alfred Sforza, 326 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, they contend that jurisdiction under the FCA is precluded by 5 U.S.C. § 8129 , which allows OWCP to recover “overpayments,” and by § 8148, which triggers the “forfeit[ure]” of entitlement in certain circumstances.”
United States v. Webber, 536 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2008).
“(b) Where the right to compensation is forfeited, OWCP shall recover any compensation already paid for the period of forfeiture pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8129 and other relevant statutes.”
Gallucci v. Chao, 374 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2005).
“” 5 U.S.C. § 8129 (a) (2000). The Secretary of Labor may “review an award for or against payment of compensation at any time on [her] own motion or on application.”
Brumley v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 431 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
· cites it 5× “” See 5 U.S.C. § 8129 . The Office also issued an order terminating plaintiffs future benefits.”
Scott Beemer v. Eric Holder, Jr., 495 F. App'x 396 (5th Cir. 2012).
“” 5 U.S.C. § 8129 . A claimant opposing an overpayment determination has the right to present evidence in writing or at a hearing before the OWCP issues a final decision.”
United States v. Carpentieri, 23 F. Supp. 2d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
“§ 8148 ; (b) recoupment of overpayment of FECA benefits upon OWCP’s finding that an overpayment was made under 5 U.S.C. § 8129 ; and (c) forfeiture of the right to compensation where a claimant provides false information regarding earnings from employment sources under 5 U.”
United States v. Vetti, 681 F. Supp. 986 (D. Conn. 1988).
“By representing that his medical problems were job related, defendant was found to have violated 5 U.S.C. § 8129 (a). 3 “On July 23,1985 OWCP moved the ECAB to remand for a further hearing as there had been an incorrect finding as to [defendant’s] fault.”
Schrader v. Hercules, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 159 (W.D. Va. 1980).
“5 U.S.C. § 8129 . That express recognition cannot be ignored by the courts.”
Int'l Union v. Dole, 919 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The Federal Employee's Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8129 (b), includes two criteria in its "equity and good conscience” determination: (1) "severe” financial hardship or (2) detrimental reliance.”
United States v. Webber, Vickie, No. 07-2117 (7th Cir. July 29, 2008).
“(b) Where the right to compensation is forfeited, OWCP shall recover any compensation already paid for the period of forfeiture pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8129 and other relevant statutes.”
Kendall v. Brock, 689 F. Supp. 354 (D. Vt. 1987).
“5 U.S.C. § 8129 . Furthermore, under Bulletin 86-85 claimants are notified of the fact of referral to an impartial specialist and are informed that the record contains conflicting medical evidence.”
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.