United States v. Lorenzetti

1984-05-29
Share:

Headline: Federal employees must reimburse FECA payments from any third-party tort recovery, even when the settlement compensates only for pain and suffering, reducing net payouts to injured federal workers nationwide.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Allows federal government to reclaim FECA payments from any third-party settlement
  • Reduces net recovery available to injured federal employees from tort suits
  • Creates tension between federal reimbursement and state no-fault laws
Topics: federal employee benefits, workers' compensation, no-fault car insurance, third-party settlements

Summary

Background

Paul B. Lorenzetti, a special agent for the FBI, was injured in a car accident while on duty and received FECA (federal workers’ compensation) payments for medical bills and lost wages. He later sued the other driver under Pennsylvania’s no-fault law and settled for $8,500, a sum the parties say represented only pain and suffering, not medical expenses or lost wages. The United States then sought reimbursement of the FECA payments from that settlement under 5 U.S.C. §8132.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the federal reimbursement statute requires repayment from any third-party recovery even when that recovery compensates only noneconomic losses like pain and suffering. The Court relied on the plain language of §8132 and related §8131, which together create a broad right to reimbursement when a third party is legally liable and the employee receives money in satisfaction of that liability. The Court rejected the view that the statute should be limited because state no-fault rules prevent recovery of economic losses, and noted Congress had not narrowed the statutory text. The United States therefore prevailed: the statute authorizes reimbursement from the settlement.

Real world impact

The ruling means the federal government can claim repayment of FECA benefits from any third-party award or settlement that satisfies liability, even if that award is for pain and suffering only. Employees retain the statutory protection of keeping one-fifth of the net recovery after fees and costs, but their overall recovery from third-party suits may be reduced. The Court emphasized that changes to soften this result would have to come from Congress, not the courts.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases