BOBBY J. STEPHENS, APPELLANT,
v.
OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAM, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, AND RICHARD E. LARSON, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, AND PETER LANA, SUPERVISOR, CLAIMS EXAMINER, OFFICE OF WORKER'S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, 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 correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and found no due process or regulatory violations.
An air traffic controller filed a worker's compensation claim for hearing loss, which was denied. He then sued government agencies alleging due proces…
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 Due Process Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bobby J. Stephens, then an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), filed a claim with the FAA, seeking compensation for an alleged high frequency hearing loss. This claim was submitted to the Department of Labor’s Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs (OWCP). The OWCP denied the claim. Following the denial, Stephens brought suit in district court1 against the OWCP, the Department of Labor, and two individual government employees, alleging that certain communications between the FAA and the OWCP while his claim was pending violated his right to due process and 20 C.F.R. § 10.140. Stephens sought a declaratory judgment to that effect and an injunction ordering the OWCP to reconsider his claim without reference to any material placed in his file after the first ex parte communication.
Following a non-jury trial, the district court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Secretary of Labor’s decision denying Stephens’ claim. See 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b) (1982). It did conclude, however, that neither the applicable regulations nor Stephens’ due process rights were violated as a result of the investigation and adjudication of his claim for compensation. Accordingly, the court dismissed Stephens’ complaint and assessed costs against him.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court made no error of law or fact in dismissing Stephens’ action and properly awarded costs. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 14.
. The Honorable Elsijane Trimble Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.