JAMES R. DURHAM, JR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES, AND DOCTOR J. F. ALDERETE, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
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 court held that the district court did not err in denying the inmate's claim for accident compensation and back pay.
An inmate sought accident compensation and back pay for an alleged back injury sustained while working in a prison shop. The Federal Prison Industries…
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 Back Pay Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Durham, an inmate of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia, appeals the district court’s denial of his claim for accident compensation against the Federal Prison Industries (FPI), 28 C.F.R. § 301.7. Finding no clear error in the ruling below, we affirm.
In the district court, Durham sought $90,000 for accident compensation and back pay arising out of an alleged injury which resulted from his work assignment in the prison's Basket Shop. He claimed that his back was injured sometime between November 16, 1970, and November 20, 1970, when he lifted a 235 pound sewing machine.
After correctly concluding that Durham had the right to seek judicial review from the FPI’s denial of his claim (5 U.S.C.A. § 702, Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 1967, 387 U.S. 136, 141, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681), the district court held that “in the absence of a showing that the FPI rendered its decision in disregard of compelling medical evi dence, its decision must stand.” 5 U.S. C.A. § 706.
On the basis of all the medical reports filed in response to the complaint, and Durham’s failure to produce any objective proof of an injury resulting from his industrial work assignment, the district court did not err in its denial of relief under 28 C.F.R. § 301. The denial of Durham’s claim for back wages was similarly proper since the record shows that Durham’s own pleadings belie his contention that he has not been paid his industrial wage during the relevant period.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1967)