Mailman Fell backwards backpeddling from dog

[quincy]

I thought there was some reason why I earlier thought it was one or the other.

That is a pretty important "or."

Good Hair Gary can collect workers compensation benefits (and assign rights to sue to employer) OR he can sue the homeowners himself and not collect benefits OR he can do both - but any amounts awarded in a private action that covers amounts already paid by workers comp must be reimbursed.

Sound about right?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Yep

Paragraph (c) clears up any lingering issues.

(c) The Secretary may prosecute or compromise a cause of action assigned to the United States. When the Secretary realizes on the cause of action, he shall deduct therefrom and place to the credit of the Employees' Compensation Fund the amount of compensation already paid to the beneficiary and the expense of realization or collection. Any surplus shall be paid to the beneficiary and credited on future payments of compensation payable for the same injury. However, the beneficiary is entitled to not less than one-fifth of the net amount of a settlement or recovery remaining after the expenses thereof have been deducted.

 

[quincy]

Yep

Paragraph (c) clears up any lingering issues.

(c) The Secretary may prosecute or compromise a cause of action assigned to the United States. When the Secretary realizes on the cause of action, he shall deduct therefrom and place to the credit of the Employees' Compensation Fund the amount of compensation already paid to the beneficiary and the expense of realization or collection. Any surplus shall be paid to the beneficiary and credited on future payments of compensation payable for the same injury. However, the beneficiary is entitled to not less than one-fifth of the net amount of a settlement or recovery remaining after the expenses thereof have been deducted.

Well, good! It took only a short time to understand what the USPS's workers compensation law was all about.

Thanks for looking into it, Payroll.

 

[LdiJ]

I thought there was some reason why I earlier thought it was one or the other.

That is a pretty important "or."

Good Hair Gary can collect workers compensation benefits (and assign rights to sue to employer) OR he can sue the homeowners himself and not collect benefits OR he can do both - but any amounts awarded in a private action that covers amounts already paid by workers comp must be reimbursed.

Sound about right?

That is how it read to me.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Your welcome @quincy.

I've always wondered why they would make it so complex and not just act like any other workers' comp and just keep the right to subrogate.

 

[justalayman]

8131 (a)(1) ends with an OR followed by (2).

Yes it does.

What’s important is what follows is b

 

[quincy]

Yes it does.

What’s important is what follows is b

I think you are causing confusion where none need exist, justalayman.

The USPS in paying workers compensation is allowed to seek reimbursement from the at-fault third party. The employee must allow for the USPS to do this, by either assigning a right to sue or by paying back the USPS for benefits paid out of any award of damages received in a private action.

The other option the employee has is to not collect workers compensation benefits at all and file a private action to cover all of his costs.

It is only when benefits are paid must the employee provide the employer a way to be reimbursed, this when there is a third party involved.

 

[justalayman]

This should make it clear;

a) If an injury or death for which compensation is payable under this subchapter is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability on a person other than the United States to pay damages, the Secretary of Labor may require the beneficiary to--


2) prosecute the action in his own name.


b) A beneficiary who refuses to assign or prosecute an action in his own name when required by the Secretary is not entitled to compensation under this subchapter.




That means if the government says the injured party must sue in their own name and refuses, they are not entitled to compensation under that chapter.



Now show me why that statement is incorrect if you believe it to be so.

 

[quincy]

The entire chapter needs to be read as a whole instead of picking bits and pieces.

An employee is not entitled to workers compensation benefits for an at-work injury if he chooses not to assign a right to sue to the USPS or chooses to sue on his own and not reimburse the USPS for benefits paid him by the USPS.

If the USPS is not at all responsible for the injury (e.g., it is an off-the-clock injury), the employee is not entitled to benefits.

Read it all as a whole. It actually makes sense.