U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart G— Insurance and Annuities › Chapter CHAPTER 81— COMPENSATION FOR WORK INJURIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES

5 U.S.C. § 8191

Determination of eligibility

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
The benefits of this subchapter are available as provided in this subchapter to eligible law enforcement officers (referred to in this subchapter as “eligible officers”) and their survivors. For the purposes of this subchapter, an eligible officer is any person who is determined by the Secretary of Labor in his discretion to have been on any given occasion—(1) a law enforcement officer and to have been engaged on that occasion in the apprehension or attempted apprehension of any person—(A) for the commission of a crime against the United States, or(B) who at that time was sought by a law enforcement authority of the United States for the commission of a crime against the United States, or(C) who at that time was sought as a material witness in a criminal proceeding instituted by the United States; or(2) a law enforcement officer and to have been engaged on that occasion in protecting or guarding a person held for the commission of a crime against the United States or as a material witness in connection with such a crime; or(3) a law enforcement officer and to have been engaged on that occasion in the lawful prevention of, or lawful attempt to prevent, the commission of a crime against the United States;and to have been on that occasion not an employee as defined in section 8101(1), and to have sustained on that occasion a personal injury for which the United States would be required under subchapter I of this chapter to pay compensation if he had been on that occasion such an employee engaged in the performance of his duty. No person otherwise eligible to receive a benefit under this subchapter because of the disability or death of an eligible officer shall be barred from the receipt of such benefit because the person apprehended or attempted to be apprehended by such officer was then sought for the commission of a crime against a sovereignty other than the United States.(Added Pub. L. 90–291, § 1(a), Apr. 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 98; amended Pub. L. 90–623, § 1(20), Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1313.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–623 substituted “For the purposes of this subchapter” for “For the purposes of this Act”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–623 intended to restate without substantive change the law in effect on Oct. 22, 1968, see section 6 of Pub. L. 90–623, set out as a note under section 5334 of this title.

Effective Date

Section 2 of Pub. L. 90–291 provided that: “The amendments made by section 1 of this Act [enacting this section and sections 8192 and 8193 of this title] are effective only with respect to personal injuries sustained on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 19, 1968].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: City of Whittier (Subrogee of Charles Hoover) v. United States Dep't of Just. (Drug Enf't Admin.), Les Kinney, 598 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Whittier (Subrogee of Charles Hoover) v. United States Dep't of Just. (Drug Enf't Admin.), Les Kinney, 598 F.2d 561 (9th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “*563 In 1968 Congress adopted 5 U.S.C. § 8191 , 1 which extended the benefits of the Federal Employees Compensation Act to state and local law enforcement officers who are injured while engaged in the apprehension of persons committing federal crimes.”
Aponte v. US Dept. of Treasury, 940 F. Supp. 898 (E.D.N.C. 1996). · cites it 2× “The Department of Labor determined that Aponte was covered under the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act (hereinafter “FECA”), under 5 U.S.C. § 8191 ; and that Aponte was entitled to the total amount of FECA, which is greater than the North Carolina Workers Compensation.”
Senerchia v. United States, 235 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000). · cites it 5× “See 5 U.S.C. § 8191 . In 1985, the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) at the Department of Labor denied Senerchia’s claim.”
Collins v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 620 (Fed. Cl. 1996). “612 (e) (1993) which provides that members of the Non-Uniformed Division of the United States Secret Service who are covered under the District of Columbia Policemen and Firemen’s Retirement and Disability Act are considered to be engaged in the types of activities specified in…”
Kelley v. United States, 792 F. Supp. 793 (M.D. Fla. 1992). “FECA is a federal worker’s compensation scheme established by Congress as an exclusive remedy for any federal employee, as broadly defined in 5 U.S.C. § 8191 , who is acting within the scope of his employment in carrying out a federally authorized mission.”
United States v. Medearis, 775 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (D.S.D. 2011). “sections 111 [Assault, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers] and 1114 [homicide against federal officers] of Title 18,” eligibility for certain benefits under 5 U.S.C. §§ 8191 et seq., or state or local employees assigned to a federal agency under 5 U.”
Gulli v. United States (D. Nev. 2025). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 8191 ; City of Whittier v. U.S.”
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.