LAZAROS

v.

MICHIGAN

Citator

Cited By

• Woodruff v. United States Dep't OF Labor, 954 F.2d 634 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …process. 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(2). After the Secretary makes a determination to award benefits, the injured employee’s exclusive remedy is to accept FECA coverage. 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c); Cobia v. United States, 384 F. 2d 711 (10th Cir.1967), cert. den., 390 U.S. 986, 88 S.Ct. 1182, 19 L.Ed.2d 1290 (1968). There are two instances, however, in which a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a final decision of the Secretary under FECA. Staacke v. United States Secretary of Labor, 841 F. 2d 278 (9th Cir.1988…
• Joyce v. United States, 474 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1973)
  …of the accident * * * were paid by the Bureau of Employees Compensation, United States Department of Labor.” These facts certainly raise “a substantial question” of coverage. In Cobia v. United States, 384 F. 2d 711 (10th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 986, 88 S.Ct. 1182, 19 L.Ed.2d 1290 (1968), the court, when confronted with a similar factual situation, ruled that an injured employee’s acceptance of FECA benefits created a bar to a later action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Although it is regr…
• Lawrence Waters by His Next Friend v. United States, 458 F.2d 20 (8th Cir. 1972)
  …U.S.C. § 8128(b) (1), and is “not subject to review * * * by a court by mandamus or otherwise.” Ibid. sub. (2). Accordingly, the award is conclusive and not subject to court review. Cobia v. United States, 10 Cir., 384 F. 2d 711, 712, cert. denied, 390 U.S. 986, 88 S.Ct. 1182, 19 L.Ed.2d 1290; Soderman v. United States Civil Service Commission, 9 Cir., 313 F. 2d 694, 695 and cases there cited, cert. denied, 372 U.S. 968, 83 S.Ct. 1089, 10 L.Ed.2d 131. Other statutes have been held to bar court review even…