5 U.S.C. § 8131

Subrogation of the United States

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If an injury or death for which continuation of pay or compensation is payable under this subchapter is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability on a person other than the United States to pay damages, the Secretary of Labor may require the beneficiary to—(1) assign to the United States any right of action he may have to enforce the liability or any right he may have to share in money or other property received in satisfaction of that liability; or(2) prosecute the action in his own name.An employee required to appear as a party or witness in the prosecution of such an action is in an active duty status while so engaged.(b) A beneficiary who refuses to assign or prosecute an action in his own name when required by the Secretary is not entitled to compensation under this subchapter.(c) The Secretary may prosecute or compromise a cause of action assigned to the United States. When the Secretary realizes on the cause of action, he shall deduct therefrom and place to the credit of the Employees’ Compensation Fund the amount of continuation of pay or compensation already paid to the beneficiary and the expense of realization or collection. Any surplus shall be paid to the beneficiary and credited on future payments of compensation payable for the same injury. However, the beneficiary is entitled to not less than one-fifth of the net amount of a settlement or recovery remaining after the expenses thereof have been deducted.(d) If an injury or death for which compensation is payable under this subchapter is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in the Panama Canal Company to pay damages under the law of a State, a territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a foreign country, compensation is not payable until the individual entitled to compensation—(1) releases to the Panama Canal Company any right of action he may have to enforce the liability of the Panama Canal Company; or(2) assigns to the United States any right he may have to share in money or other property received in satisfaction of the liability of the Panama Canal Company.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 546; Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(60), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 211; Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LIII, § 5305(b)(1), Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3254.)

Historical and Revision Notes
1966 Act
Derivation	U.S. Code	Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large
(a)–(c)	5 U.S.C. 776.	Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, § 26, 39 Stat. 747.
		Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–767, § 207, 74 Stat. 908.
(d)	5 U.S.C. 791.	Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, § 41, 39 Stat. 750.

In subsection (d), the first 45 words of section 41 of the Act of Sept. 7, 1916, are omitted as executed. The words “Panama Canal Company” are substituted for “Panama Railroad Company” on authority of the Act of Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, § 2(a) (2), 64 Stat. 1038.

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.

1967 Act
Section of title 5	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
8131(c)	5 App.: 776 (proviso).	July 4, 1966, Pub. L. 89–488, § 10(a), 80 Stat. 255.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

For definition of Panama Canal Company, referred to in text, see section 3602(b) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Amendments

2022—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 117–263, § 5305(b)(1)(A), inserted “continuation of pay or” before “compensation” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–263, § 5305(b)(1)(B), inserted “continuation of pay or” before “compensation already paid”.

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 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Nicholas J. Janakes, on Behalf of Himself & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United States Postal Serv., 768 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Nicholas J. Janakes, on Behalf of Himself & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United States Postal Serv., 768 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “” Moreover, 5 U.S.C. § 8131 (a) grants the government power to force the beneficiary either to prosecute an action against the third party in the beneficiary’s name, or to assign his rights of action to the government to the extent the government is entitled to share in the…”

Gonzalez v. Dep't of Labor, 609 F.3d 451 (D.C. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 5 U.S.C. § 8131 (a)(2) (authorizing Secretary of Labor to require FECA beneficiary to prosecute action against third party in his own name).”

Miller v. Pool & Canfield, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Third, they maintain that the OWCP’s decision cannot collaterally es-top them from pursuing a tort action in state court because under 5 U.S.C. § 8131 and 20 C.F.R. § 10.500 they must maintain an action against the defendant.”

Cletis Meredith Miller v. William Bolger, Postmaster Gen. of the United States Postal Serv. & the United States of Am., 802 F.2d 660 (3rd Cir. 1986). “Miller’s counsel conceded at oral argument that Miller’s recovery under Title VII could be credited against his FECA recovery to avoid any double recovery. We expressly do not decide what relief might be recoverable under Title VII for lost wages if plaintiff is also recovering…”

Harry H. Wallace & Elizabeth Snyder Wallace v. United States, 669 F.2d 947 (4th Cir. 1982). “It does not bar the Wallaces’ claim against the United States as the substitute defendant for other program participants such as the manufacturers of the vaccine.”

Jacqueline & Salvadore A. Dipippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3rd Cir. 1982). “” 5 U.S.C. § 8131 (a). DiPippa’s suit is not against a third party, but directly against the United States, as the plain language of the Swine Flu Act expressly requires.”

Albert J. Fusco v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 643 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1981). “In support of this position, Fusco reasons that since the statutes, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8131 and 8132 (Federal Employees Compensation Act), recognized the injured claimant’s right to bring a third party action, any defeat of such action would extinguish the government’s derivative right…”

Nicholson v. United Tech. Corp., 697 F. Supp. 598 (D. Conn. 1988). “5 U.S. C. §§ 8131, 8132. For the foregoing reasons, UTC’s motion for summary judgment on this issue is denied.”

United States v. Limbs, 356 F. Supp. 1004 (D. Ariz. 1973). · cites it 5× “In his letter he referred to two certain provisions of the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 8131 and 8132, 1 promised to send a current statement of disbursements made to the Limbs’, and then asked Mr.”

Ocasio v. Fed. Express Corp., 33 A.3d 1139 (N.H. 2011). “711 (2010), or to “assign to the United States any right of action he may have to enforce the liability or any right he may have to share in money or other property received in satisfaction of that liability,” 5 U.S.C.A. § 8131 (a)(1). C. Lawsuit Against FedEx The plaintiff sued…”

Gonzalez v. Dep't of Labor, 603 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D.D.C. 2009). · cites it 2× “However, regardless of whether the Secretary requires the filing of a lawsuit, a FECA beneficiary who receives compensation through a third-party lawsuit must reimburse Labor for federal funds already paid to the beneficiary as compensation for an injury. 5 U.S.C.”

Thomas E. Bates Et Ux. v. Fred Harp, 573 F.2d 930 (6th Cir. 1978). “§ 8116 (c), 2 the retention of rights permitted by 5 U.S.C. § 8131 (a) against third persons does not include fellow-employees, their acts being those chargeable to their employer, here the TVA.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

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.