Stanley-Salters v. U.S. Government

Filing 18

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate all motions and deadlines and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/24/2018. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

CAROLYN STANLEY-SALTERS,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

*

V.

CV 118-018

*
*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

*

Defendant.

*

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(Doc. 11.)

a response brief and Defendant has replied.

Plaintiff filed

(Docs. 16, 17.)

As

discussed below, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over
this case and, therefore, GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss.

I.

BACKGROUND

On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action against the
United States of America seeking damages for injuries she sustained
while

working at the Charlie Norwood Veterans Affairs Medical

Center.

(Compl., Doc. 1, at 4-5.)

The incident occurred on

December 6, 2013, when a medical code cart fell onto Plaintiff

injuring her shoulder, back, and legs.
forced

Plaintiff

to

corrective surgery.

retire

early

(Id. at 5.)

(Id. at 4.)
from

her

Those injuries

job

and

undergo

On

February

12,

2015,

Plaintiff

submitted

a

workers'

compensation claim to the United States Department of Labor's
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs C'OWCP").

1.)

(Doc. 11, Ex.

Plaintiff's claim was initially denied, but she appealed that

decision to an OWCP hearing representative, who partially reversed

the denial with respect to Plaintiff's claim for a lower back
strain.

7-14.)

(Decision of Hearing Representative, Doc. 16, Ex. 1, at

In two letters dated February 24, 2016, the OWCP notified

Plaintiff that her claim for medical payments arising from the

back injury was granted, but she would not receive continuation of

pay benefits.

(Doc. 11, Exs. 3, 4.)

Thus, Plaintiff received

workers' compensation benefits for the injuries she sustained
during the December 6th incident.

On April 30, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing Plaintiff's acceptance
of workers' compensation benefits is the exclusive remedy for her

injuries. (Doc. 11.) After a Show Cause Order was entered against
Plaintiff on August 22nd, she responded to Defendant's motion with
numerous

medical

compensation.

documents

(Doc. 16.)

contending

she

was

entitled

to

Plaintiff, however, failed to respond

to the arguments Defendant put forth regarding subject matter
jurisdiction.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and an

action

may

proceed

in

jurisdiction exists.

federal court

only if subject matter

Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F. 3d

964, 974-75 {11th Cir. 2005).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) permits litigants to move for dismissal when the court

lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute.
R. Civ. p. 12(b)(1).

upon

Fed.

''A federal court must always dismiss a case

determining that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction,

regardless of the stage of the proceedings."

Goodman ex rel.

Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1331 n.6 (11th Cir. 2001).

To invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, a plaintiff must

properly ''allege the jurisdictional facts, according to the nature
of the case."

McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Ind., 298

U.S. 178, 182 (1936); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (stating that

a pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the grounds
on which the court's jurisdiction depends").

On a motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the burden remains
on

the

plaintiff

to

show

that

the

jurisdiction has been properly invoked.

court's

limited

federal

Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. V.

APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1248 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).

B. Federal Employees' Compensation Act

Since 1916, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act ('"FECA")

has provided federal employees injured on the job with workers'

compensation benefits.

5 U.S.C. § 8102(a); Woodruff v. United

States Dept. of Labor, Off, of Workers' Comp. Programs, 954 F.2d
634, 636 (11th Cir. 1992).

The Supreme Court found that the FECA

adopts the "'principal compromise — the "quid pro quo' — commonly
found in workers compensation legislation."

Corp.

V.

United

States,

460

U.S.

190,

Lockheed Aircraft

193-94

(1983).

This

compromise grants federal employees the right to receive immediate
benefits without needing to determine fault or engage in protracted

litigation, but in return employees give up any right to sue the
federal government.
exclusive

remedy,

Id.
barring

Thus, recovery under the FECA is an
an

employee

from

seeking

further

recourse, such as in a Federal Tort Claims Act suit against the
federal government.

5 U.S.C. § 8116(c)

Lockheed, 460 U.S. at

194.

Under

the

FECA,

administer the program.

the

Secretary

of

Labor

5 U.S.C. §§ 8145, 8149.

is

empowered

to

Pursuant to this

1 The statute provides: "The liability of the United States or an

instrumentality thereof under this subchapter or any extension thereof with
respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all
other liability of the United States or the instrumentality to the employee,
his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other
person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States or the
instrumentality because of the injury or death in a direct judicial
proceeding, in a civil action, or in admiralty, or by an administrative or
judicial proceeding under a workmen's compensation statute or under a Federal
tort liability statute."

authority, the Secretary has delegated the responsibilities for
administering

the

FECA

to

the

Director

of

the

20 C.F.R. § 10.1; see also Woodruff, 954 F.2d at 636.

OWCP.

The OWCP

makes a decision on an employee's claim and once it decides that

a disability resulted from a workplace injury, "the claimant is
limited

to

the

remedies

authorized

by

the

FECA,

even

if

a

particular type of damage or consequence the claimant suffered is
not compensable under the FECA."

Noble v. United States of

America, 216 F.3d 1229, 1234 (11th Cir. 2000).
The OWCP's decision on a claim can be appealed in three ways:

(1) reconsideration by the district office, (2) a hearing before
an OWCP hearing representative, or (3) appealing to the Employees

Compensation Appeal Board.

20 C.F.R. § 10.600.

Noticeably absent

from this list is any recourse in the federal courts.

The FECA is

the exclusive remedy for injured federal employees and any decision
by the Secretary or his designee is "not subject to review by
another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or
otherwise."

5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(2); see also Woodruff, 954 F.2d at

639 ("After the Secretary makes a determination to award benefits
the

injured

employee's

exclusive

remedy

is

to

accept

FECA

coverage.")
Plaintiff's

claim

before

this

Court

is

barred

because

she

filed for and received workers' compensation benefits under the

FECA.

The injury underlying her claim here is the same injury

that she was compensated for under the FECA.

Accordingly, this

Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate her claim for damages
arising from the workplace accident or review the decision made by
the

OWCP.

Simply

put.

Plaintiff

filed

a

claim

for

workers

compensation, the OWCP accepted her claim and paid benefits, this
was her exclusive remedy.

To the extent that Plaintiff argues she is entitled to lost

wages for her absence from work due to injury, that argument must
fail.

lacks

The OWCP denied continuation of pay benefits and this Court

authority

to

5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(2).

review

that

decision.

See

As such. Defendant's motion to dismiss for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.

Ill.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's personal injury claim is premised on the same
facts as her workers' compensation claim under the FECA.

Because

the FECA provides the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff, this court

lacks jurisdiction over her claim.

Therefore, Defendant's motion

to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJXTOICE.

The

Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all motions and

deadlines and CLOSE this case.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

day of October,

2018.

J. RAMOPJ^rf^LL, CHIETF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHEW^^DISTRICT OF GEORGIA