Notes of Decisions
Nicholas J. Janakes 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, 802 F.2d 660 (3d 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 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 (3d 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 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.”
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.