Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04035/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04035-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Clifford Buckley
Not Party
Jimmy Galetka
Appellant
Carlos Martinez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARLOS MARTINEZ, JIMMY GALETKA, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

CLIFFORD BUCKLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v . 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FILED 

Uniteo 3tates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

AUG 1 91992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No . 92-4035 

(D.C. No. 79-NC-49J) 

(Dist. of Utah) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellants Carlos Martinez and Jimmy Galetka appeal, pro se, 

from the district court's order denying their motion to set aside 

a judgment of dismissal. 

* This Order and Judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-4035 Document: 010110285785 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 1
Appellants filed this action pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2671, et seq., alleging that 

while working 

Department of 

as 

the 

civilian employees of 

Air Force at Hill 

the United States 

Air Force Base in Weber 

County, Utah, during February and August of 1977, they were 

exposed to toxic chemicals resulting in internal injuries, brain 

damage, pain and suffering, loss of bodily function, loss of wages 

and loss of earning capacity. Both sought substantial general 

damages. 

Affidavits from an administrator employed by the United 

States Department of 

instant suit on April 

Labor disclosed that prior to filing the 

11, 1979, appellants had filed formal 

complaints with the Department of Labor alleging that these same 

injuries were compensable under the Federal Employees Compensation 

Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. § 8101, et seq. 

The district court entered oral findings/conclusions in 

dismissing appellants' complaint. The court concluded that the 

exclusive remedy for work-related injuries of employees of the 

United States is under FECA. (R., Vol. II, p. 15). We agree. 

On appeal, appellants contend that the district court failed 

to address the merits of their claims and failed to determine the 

evidence in accordance with the facts. Further, they contend that 

the court failed to rule because of misleading information 

submitted by the Defendant. 

In Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190 

(1983), the Supreme Court held that Congress intended that FECA's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-4035 Document: 010110285785 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 2
exclusive liability provision, 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c), applied to 

suits under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 

2671, et seg., without distinction. In United States v. Udy, 381 

F.2d 455 (10th Cir. 1967), this court observed that the FECA 

constitutes the exclusive liability of the United States for the 

death (or injuries) of a federal employee sustained in the 

performance of his duties, and that the actions of the Secretary 

of Labor in administering FECA are not reviewable and are final 

and conclusive for all purposes, citing to 5 U.S.C. §§ 8102(a), 

8116(c), and 8128(b) (1) (2). See also United States v. Browning, 

359 F.2d 937, 938 (10th Cir. 1966); United States v. Martinez, 334 

F.2d 728, 729 (10th Cir. 1964). 

In Avasthi v. United States, 608 F.2d 1059, 1060 (5th Cir. 

1979), the court explained that when an employee of the United 

States is injured in the performance of a duty, the remedy 

provided by FECA is exclusive, similar to" state workmen's 

compensation laws [designed] to provide injured employees with 

more immediate and less expensive relief than a common law tort 

action." 

We AFFIRM. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court: 

James E. Barrett, 

Senior United States 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4035 Document: 010110285785 Date Filed: 08/19/1992 Page: 3