UNITED STATES
v.
MEYER; MEYER V. UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act provides the sole and exclusive remedy for a federal employee killed in the line of duty, barring a wrongful death suit against the United States.
A federal civil service employee, a bin-tender on a U.S. Engineers dredge, was killed in service. His administrator initially collected burial benefit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Employees Compensation Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The decedent, a federal civil service employee, serving as a bin-tender on a dredge operated by the United States Engineers, was killed in the service of the vessel, leaving a dependent father. The decedent’s administrator first filed claim and collected burial benefits under the Compensation Act. He then brought a suit against the United States for wrongful death in which appellee, the present administrator, was substituted.
The district j'udge, rejecting the contention of the United States that the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U.S. C.A- § 751 et seq., furnished the sole and exclusive remedy, gave judgment for the libellant,- and the United States appealed, presenting that contention as the sole question for our decision.
After the appeal had been lodged here, the Supreme Court, in Johansen v. United States ( Mandel, Administrator, v. United States,) 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, considered the question and answered it in accordance with the contention appellant makes here.
The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to dismiss the libel for failure to state a cause of action, but without prejudice to the right of the decedent’s dependent father to renew his claim for compensation in accordance with the proviso to Section 303(g) of the Act of October 14, 1949, c. 691, 63 Stat. 866, 5 U.S. C.A. § 757 note.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emil Zoula and Charles C. Sterling v. United States, 217 F.2d 81 (5th Cir. 1954)
-
Sasse v. United States, 201 F.2d 871 (7th Cir. 1953)
Authorities Cited
- Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1952)