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. § 8151

Civil service retention rights

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In the event the individual resumes employment with the Federal Government, the entire time during which the employee was receiving compensation under this chapter shall be credited to the employee for the purposes of within-grade step increases, retention purposes, and other rights and benefits based upon length of service.(b) Under regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management—(1) the department or agency which was the last employer shall immediately and unconditionally accord the employee, if the injury or disability has been overcome within one year after the date of commencement of compensation or from the time compensable disability recurs if the recurrence begins after the injured employee resumes regular full-time employment with the United States, the right to resume his former or an equivalent position, as well as all other attendant rights which the employee would have had, or acquired, in his former position had he not been injured or disabled, including the rights to tenure, promotion, and safeguards in reductions-in-force procedures, and(2) the department or agency which was the last employer shall, if the injury or disability is overcome within a period of more than one year after the date of commencement of compensation, make all reasonable efforts to place, and accord priority to placing, the employee in his former or equivalent position within such department or agency, or within any other department or agency.(Added Pub. L. 93–416, § 22, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1149; amended Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1978—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 95–454 substituted “Office of Personnel Management” for “Civil Service Commission”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Effective Date

Section applicable to cases where injury or death occurred prior to Sept. 7, 1974, but only to a period beginning on or after Sept. 7, 1974, see section 28(a) of Pub. L. 93–416, set out as an Effective Date of 1974 Amendment note under section 8101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Gallo v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gallo v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 56× “The issues presented in the motion are (1) whether the Court of Federal Claims may exercise jurisdiction over a claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8151 (a) (2000), a section of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA); and (2) whether plaintiff may properly state a claim for relief…”
Roseanne Cronin v. United States Postal Serv., 2022 MSPB 13 (MSPB 2022). · cites it 6× “365 , ¶ 9 (2016); see 5 U.S.C. § 8151 (b). Congress has explicitly granted OPM the authority to issue regulations governing the obligations of employing agencies in this regard.”
Randall Desjardin v. U.S. Postal Serv., 2023 MSPB 6 (MSPB 2023). · cites it 4× “365 , ¶ 9 (2016); see 5 U.S.C. § 8151 (b). Congress has explicitly granted the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to issue regulations governing the obligations of employing agencies in this regard.”
Bledsoe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 659 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “301 (a) and 5 U.S.C. § 8151 (b)(1). See Gallo v. United States, 529 F.”
Gallo v. United States, 529 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 6× “Gallo (“Gallo”) appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing her claim under 5 U.S.C. § 8151 (a) (2000) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Peter R. Kachanis, Jr. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 212 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 8× “209 , contending that the Agency had violated its duty to return him to a comparable position under 5 U.S.C. § 8151 and 5 C.F.R. Part 353. On December 22, 1997, the chief administrative judge issued an initial decision reversing the Agency termination.”
Gallo v. Dep't of Transp., 689 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 13× “Gallo (“Gallo”) appeals the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying her restoration rights under 5 U.S.C. § 8151 (a). See Gallo v. Dep’t of Transp.”
Norman A. Johnson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 812 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1987). · cites it 11× “The petitioner challenges a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) that dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, his appeal from the denial of priority consideration for reemployment with the United States Postal Service under 5 U.S.C. § 8151 (b)(2) (1982), following…”
Nurriddin v. Acosta, 327 F. Supp. 3d 147 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “5 U.S.C. § 8151 . Depending on when the employee recovers from his injury, the federal employer is required either to restore the employee to "his former or an equivalent position," id.”
Gordon R. True v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 926 F.2d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “Application of 5 U.S.C. §§ 8151 (a) and 8332(f) Mr. True and NALC vigorously contend that the Board’s refusal to grant Mr.”
Jerald H. Miller v. The United States Postal Serv., 729 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “This action was later filed, based on 5 U.S.C. § 8151 and 5 C.F.R. § 353 1 . In this suit, Miller alleges, inter alia, that he was removed from his employment for “constitutionally *1035 impermissible reasons and for reasons which were non-job-related and which were arbitrary…”
Andre Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics, Inc., 70 F.3d 667 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “5 Brumley was a mentally disabled former employee of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) who sought priority consideration for restoration to federal employment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8151 , which predicated the level of priority for reemployment on the extent of…”
Show all 105 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 8151(b) — 2 cases
Vivien L. Minor v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 819 F.2d 280 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Lonnie Turner v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2026).
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.