U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart G— Insurance and Annuities › Chapter CHAPTER 81— COMPENSATION FOR WORK INJURIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— EMPLOYEES OF NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES

5 U.S.C. § 8173

Liability under this subchapter exclusive

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

The liability of the United States or of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality described by section 2105(c) of this title, with respect to the disability or death resulting from injury, as defined by section 2(2) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 902(2)), of an employee referred to by sections 8171 and 8172 of this title, shall be determined as provided by this subchapter. This liability is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States or the instrumentality because of the disability or death in a direct judicial proceeding, in a civil action, or in admiralty, or by an administrative or judicial proceeding under a workmen’s compensation statute or under a Federal tort liability statute.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2023 · leading case: Dist. of Columbia v. Thompson, 593 A.2d 621 (D.C. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dist. of Columbia v. Thompson, 593 A.2d 621 (D.C. 1991). · cites it 4× “See 5 U.S.C. § 8173 (1988). In contrast, CMPA's personnel evaluation provisions have no direct federal source.”
Ramiro Vilanova v. United States of Am., 851 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1988). · cites it 6× “5 U.S.C. § 8173 ; 33 U.S.C. § 902 (2). Vilanova has already been paid LHWCA compensation for his injuries.”
Johnson v. United States, 600 F.2d 1218 (6th Cir. 1979). · cites it 4× “1 The Government further argued that, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8173 , appellees’ sole and exclusive remedy for the decedent’s death was to seek compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (Longshoremen’s Act), 33 U.”
Howard v. Bradshaw & Ona Bradshaw v. United States of Am., Howard v. Bradshaw & Ona Bradshaw v. United States, 443 F.2d 759 (D.C. Cir. 1971). · cites it 2× “397 , 5 U.S.C. § 8173 (Supp. V, 1969). One reason for the exemption of non-appropriated fund employees from civil service and employee compensation laws is the expense of administration.”
Atkinson v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 665 F. Supp. 516 (S.D. Miss. 1987). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 8173 ; see also Johnson v. United States, 600 F.”
United States of Am. v. Charles H. Brown, 536 F.2d 117 (6th Cir. 1976). “Nearly identical language is now embodied in 5 U.S.C. § 8173 , enacted in 1966.”
Laverne Tarver v. United States, 25 F.3d 900 (10th Cir. 1994). “See 5 U.S.C. § 8173 . However, FECA only applies to injuries incurred by an employee “while in the performance of his duty.”
Ann Farley Donna L. Rambo Cynthia Lee Shanklin v. United States, 162 F.3d 613 (10th Cir. 1998). “” 2 5 U.S.C. § 8173 . If the Compensation Act applies to a particular injury, a tort action against the United States regarding those same injuries is preempted and as such the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Jean Martin v. United States, 566 F.2d 895 (4th Cir. 1977). “In addition, 5 U.S.C. § 8173 states that the liability of the United States under this scheme of compensation is exclusive; nonappropriated fund employees whose injuries are covered have no other remedies against the government.”
Donna H. Chauncey Wilder v. United States, 873 F.2d 285 (11th Cir. 1989). “5 U.S.C.A. § 8173 . The language of section 8173 is identical in all material respects to the language of its sister provision, 5 U.”
Doris M. Calder v. Max D. Crall & Sgt. Terry L. Earl, 726 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1984). “5 U.S.C. § 8173 . On the other hand, because AAFES employees are federal employees, the United States may be held liable for their negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”
Eure v. United States Postal Serv., 711 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D. Miss. 1989). “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8173 , the remedy thereunder is exclusive.”
Show all 30 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.