The Grand Bargain: Injured Employee Can’t Sue Agency
By Frank Ferreri, November 13, 2024
Quick facts:
- A VA nurse was injured on the job, and the injury was covered under FECA.
- The nurse’s attempt to also sue the agency was barred by the “exclusive remedy” doctrine.
- Due to the “grand bargain” that is workers’ compensation law, the employee was limited in recovery to the $2,108.04 she received via FECA.
The workers’ compensation system across the country, including the law that governs federal agencies, is often called the “grand bargain” because it guarantees – with some exceptions – that an employee’s work-related injuries will be compensated in exchange for an assurance that the employer can’t be sued for those same injuries.
Recently, Lopez v. U.S., No. 1:23-cv-03538 (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2024), demonstrated the “exclusive remedy” doctrine in action.
The injury
A longtime registered nurse for the Department of Veterans Affairs suffered muscle strains, nerve damage, and chronic pain after a patient attacked her while she was on duty. The nurse filed a Federal Employees’ Compensation Act claim with the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. OWCP accepted most of the claim and paid the nurse $2,108.04 to cover her related medical costs.
The nurse then filed an administrative claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act, alleging the hospital was negligent in not warning her of the danger the patient posed and in not providing her with a security guard for her protection. The VA denied the administrative claim, stating that her earlier FECA claims precluded her FTCA claims. The nurse brought the FTCA case to court.
Exclusive remedy rule
FECA contains an exclusive remedy provision. In exchange for offering fixed compensation in lieu of litigation rights, the law protects the government from suits under statutes like the FTCA. A government employee covered by FECA cannot bring suit under the FTCA until the Secretary of Labor, in the form of the OWCP, has first found that FECA did not cover the employee’s injuries. FECA’s exclusive remedy provisions nixed the nurse’s FTCA claim in court.
“Plaintiff is a federal employee who seeks compensation for injuries she incurred at the VA,” the court wrote. “She filed a FECA compensation form with the OWCP, the OWCP determined that the FECA covered her injuries, and the OWCP provided her with compensation.”
In an effort to spare her case from the exclusive remedy barricade, the nurse alleged she experienced emotional injuries. The court noted that although “the state of the law concerning FECA coverage for emotional and psychological injuries sustained by federal employees remains unsettled,” it didn’t make a difference because once FECA applies to a claim, exclusivity attaches.
The court dismissed the nurse’s tort claim against the agency.
The statute
In reaching its decision, the court relied on the language of FECA and a longstanding precedent case applying it, as follows.
5 USC 8116(c): This statute provides that the “liability of the United States under [FECA] … with respect to the injury or death of an employee is exclusive and instead of all other liability.”
Daniels-Lumley v. U.S., 306 F.2d 7269 (D.C. Cir. 1962): In a case involving a federal worker who slipped on an icy sidewalk, the court spelled out that “unless [a] plaintiff’s injuries were clearly not compensable under the FECA … , we believe that the Secretary of Labor must be given the primary opportunity to rule.”
In other words, the “grand bargain” kicks in when an employee’s injury triggers FECA coverage, which in turn protects the agency from having to shell out additional damages that might be awarded in a tort action.
The lesson
If a federal employee’s injuries are compensable under FECA – and especially if she’s already been compensated through the operation of FECA – she will be barred from bringing a tort action under another federal statute, such as the FTCA.
On a related note, if the injuries rise to the level of a disability, the agency has an obligation to accommodate the employee’s medical restrictions if doing so does not cause an undue hardship. [email protected]
Related training:
