GENERAL COUNSEL'S OPINION NUMBER 55-31, DATED 15 NOVEMBER 1955

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070061-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 6, 2001
• Sequence Number: 61
• Publication Date: November 15, 1955
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070061-7
GENERAL COUNSEL'S OPINION NUMBER 55-31, DATED 15 NOVEMBER 1955
Medical benefits under the Federal Em loyees' Compensation Act
and those under the CIA Act are complementary and Agency regu-
lations may authorize the payment of CIA Act medical benefits
for cases compensable under FECA.
STATINTL
1. The proposed issuance of Regulation Employees' Compensa-
STATINTL tion Benefits, requires resolution of
the question o whether or not the benefits provided under FECA and under
P. L. 110, 81st Congress, for injury and death of employees are mutually
exclusive, complementary or alternative. Agency practice has been to allow
an employee to elect which benefits he will receive when he incurs an
injury in the line of duty which would also be considered to have been
incurred in the performance of duty in the sense of FECA. There is some
question as to whether or not this procedure has been correct in view of
the supposed exclusive remedy provided by FECA. The quPStion has been
discussed with representatives of the Bureau of Employees' Compensation
and of the Office of the Solicitor, Department of Labor. They recognize
the issues involved but consider it a problem for Agency determination.
2. Section 7(b) of FECA, which was added by amendment in 1949,
states, in effect, that the liability of the United States under this
Act shall be exclusive. However, section 7(a), which previous to the
amendment in 1949 had been section 7 in its entirety, provides, in effect,
that whenever any person is entitled to receive benefits under FECA and
is also entitled to receive any payments or benefits under any other Act
of Congress, such person shall elect which benefits he shall receive.
On the surface se,tions7(a) and 7(b) would appear to be incompatible.
3. The wording of section 7(a), providing an election between
benefits, is such as to indicate that the election is allowed only
when another benefit is one which has been earned by reason of service.
It is designed in particular to preserve pension rights under various
retirement systems which make provision for disability retirement. In
many situations the employee has earned certain pension rights through
service and has also contributed financially to the pension fund and
therefore should not lose the rights thus accrued. For example, this
election provision allows an individual under the Civil Service Retire-
ment system, who has become totally disabled, to elect the benefits of
his retirement system for which he has worked and paid, in the event than
those benefits are greater than those under FECA. The election of a
. ej 10/0
''ww
H 70'3
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070061-7
 Approved For I3 ease 2002/05/17: CIA-RDP78-058440100070061-7
Page 2 - GC Opinion No. 55-31
benefit of this nature does not dilute the basic purpose of the ex-
clusive remedy provision of section 7(b), which is to cut down the
number of law suits against the Government while at the same time
providing adequate pensions for those disabled in the performance of
duty. Therefore, the exclusive remedy provision of section 7(b) and
the election provision of section 7(a) are not incompatible. It
appears, however, that the exception provided for earned pension
rights and that provided in section 7(b) for masters or members of
the crew of any vessel are meant to be the only exceptions to the
exclusive remedy provision.
4. Since section 7(a) of FECA provides an election of benefits
only under certain specified circumstances, and section 7(b) of the
Act provides that the liability of the United States under FECA shall
be exclusive, there would appear to be some question as to whether or
not an employee of the United States might receive benefits of any
kind other than those provided in FECA for injuries, disability or
death resulting from performance of duty. There is some argument
that the language of 7(b) combined with that of 7(a), makes it plain
that no other benefit of any kind is permitted either in addition to
or in place of the FECA benefits. Certainly there is no doubt that
no other benefit in the nature of unearned pensions or lump-sum pay-
ments for certain types of injuries may be allowed. However, there
is more doubt as to whether or not the exclusive remedy provision
prohibits payment of medical expenses under another Act. The question
of particular interest is, of course, whether or not an employee of
CIA who is injured in the performance of duty, but under circumstances
which comply with the line of duty requirements of section 5(a)(5)(A)
and 5(a)(5)(C) of P. L. 110, may receive the benefits provided in the
latter Act. These benefits are only the payment of medical expenses
and necessary transportation and are not any greater than those pro-
vided under section 9(a) of FECA.
5. In resolving the question of whether an employee who meets
performance-of-duty standards may have his necessary hospital expenses
and transportation paid it is STATOTHR
necessary to take into consideration the wording of section 7(b) of
FECA. In substance it is as follows:
"The liability of the United States . . . under this
Act . . . shall be exclusive, and in place of all other
liability . . . to the employee . . . and anyone otherwise
entitled to recover damages from the United States . . .
on account of such injury or death, in any direct judicial
proceedings in a civil action or in admiralty, or by pro-
ceedings, whether administrative or Judicial,,_ under any
other workmen's compensation law or under any Federal tort
liability statute: . . ." Emphasis Supplied
 Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070061-7
Page 3 - GC Opinion No. 55-31
It would seem clear from the wording of section 7(b) that the
intent was to limit to action under FECA recovery in the nature of
damages for injuries incurred in the performance of duty. Although
by definition in section 40(h) of FECA the term "compensation" as
used in the Act refers to all benefits paid out of the compensation
fund., thus including payment for medical expenses, it would seem from STATOTH R
the way that the word "compensation" is used elsewhere in the Act that STATOTH R
recovery in the nature of damages or pension rights was actually con-
templated rather than mere reimbursement for medical expenses.
7. in view of the fact that the exclusive remedy provision of
section 7(b) of FECA is designed to prevent unnecessary law suits
against the United States
8.
STATOTHR
STATOTHR
I STATOTHR
it is recognized that he
failing to comply with the
filing requirements of that Act within the time limits set up therein.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070061-7
 Approved For ease 2002/05/17: CIA-RDP78-058440100070061-7
Page 4 - GC Opinion No. 55-31
In many cases employees do not wish to be bothered with the "red tape"
of filing an FECA claim when they are convinced that their injury is
of a minor nature and will cause no future disability. In some cases
the employee will be wrong and the injury will prove to be of more
lasting effect than he had first thought it to be. In such cases,
the employee could lose substantial benefits and be put to great
expense in the future. However, it is believed that this roblem is
moot inasmuch as the requirements of proposed Regulation Il are
such that the employee is, in effect, filing an F-ECA claim whether
or not he immediately receives 1 CA benefits. Because of the procedures
worked out with the Bureau of Employees' Compensation, a claim, when
filed within the Agency, is as valid as if it had been submitted to
the Bureau of Employees' Compensation and, therefore, the time limit
for filing will not be a problem.
STATINTL
STATINTL
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel