1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) LESA KARAPONDO , ) ) Petitioner , ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 18

- cv - 91 ( TSC ) ) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR et al

. , ) ) Respondents

. ) ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamu s against Respondent Department of Labor and several of its employees. Pending is the agency’s Response to the Order to Show Cause and Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment , ECF No. 1 3 . F or the following reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss will be GRANTED

. I. BACKGROUND 1. Factual Allegations Petitioner is “the natural daughter of Peter Nick Karapondo” who was allegedly exposed “to far greater Radiation Levels than was legally allowe d” while employed at the F eed Materials Production Center in Fernald, Ohio

. Pet. at 7 ; see Ex. 1 to Decl. of Rachel P. Leiton, ECF No. 10

- 2 at 5

. 1 Petitioner’s father developed , among other

1 Respondents’ declarant is a Division Director in the Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Program (“OWCP”)

. Decl. of Rachel P. Leiton ¶ 1, ECF No. 10

- 2.2 maladies, “ abdominal cancer ” and “ chronic e mph ysema , ” and died at the age of 35 after having “suffered immensely

. ” Pet . at 7

- 8

. 2. Statutory Framework and Administrative Claim s Respondent confirms that Petitioner’s father worked from September 28, 1953 , to April 26, 1954 , at a Department of Energy (DOE) facility that ceased operations in 1989. Resp

. Mem. at 5

- 6 , ECF No. 10

- 1

. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (“Compensation Act”) , 42 U.S.C. § § 7384

– 7385s , certain employees or their eligible survivors may apply to the OWCP for compensation for illnesses caused by their exposure to radiation and other toxic substances “in the performance of their duty for” DOE “and certain of its contractors and subcontractor s.” Id

. § 7384d(b); see also Resp

. Mem. at 2

- 3 . Under Part B of the Act , titled Pro gram Administration , covered employees or certain of their survivors may receive a lump

sum payment of $150,000

. S ee 42 U.S.C. § 7384s

. U nder Part E of the Act , titled Contractor Employee Compensation , “certain DOE contractor employees” or their eligible survivors may receive additional compensation “ for permanent impairment and/or wage

- loss due to a ‘covered’ illness resulting from work

- related expos ure t o toxic substances at a DOE facility.” Mem. at 2 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7385s) ; see Leiton Decl., Ex. 3 (confirming that Petitioner’s father was a chemical operator for a DOE contractor) . An eligible survivor is so e ntitled only “if the deceased employee would have been entitled to compensation [under Part E] for a covered illness ; and it is ‘at least as likely as not’ ” that the employee’s exposure “was a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing [his] death.” 42 U.S.C. § 7385s

- 3(a)(1)).3 On August 13, 2012, Petitioner applied for survivor benefits under Parts B and E, “alleging that her late father developed colon cancer as a result of his employment at the Feed Materials Production Center.” Leit on Decl. ¶ 3

. In a final decision issued on February 26, 2014, OWCP ’s Final Adjudication Branch denied Petitioner’s claim “under Parts B and E on the ground that data” provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health “showed that it w as not ‘at least as likely as not’” that her “father’s colon cancer was caused by exposure to radiation during his employment at the FMPC.” Leiton Decl. ¶ ¶ 3, 5. On December 5, 2016, Petitione r filed “a new claim under Part E for her father’s death that was due, in part, to emphysema, and for other alleged illnesses.” Id

. ¶ 8. In a final decision issued on November 3, 2017, following a hearing, the Final Adjudication Branch denied Petitioner’ s claim “ o n the ground that there was insufficient evidence to establish that her father’s work

- related exposure to a toxic substance was ‘at least as likely as not’ a significant factor causing , contributing to or aggravating his death due, in part, to em physema and other alleged illnesses.” Id

. ¶¶
8

- 12.
3. Mandamus Claim In this case, Petitioner alleges that she “filed an action before the Department of Labor . . . explaining that her father was mortally injured as a result of his employment with The Fe rnald Plant,” which “over

- radiated him on a daily basis.” Pet. at 8. Petitioner a sserts that (1) Congress has enacted laws to “provide a measure of compensation” to Nuclear Power Workers who become “victims” of exposure , (2) her father met the “250

- day employment requirement,” and (3) her father’s colon “Cancer is4 one of the 22 enumerated Cancers so listed for summary compensation.” Id . Petitioner concludes , therefore , that the Labor Secretary “has no discretion than to awar d such compensation for [her] Colon Cancer Claim[.]” Id

. She seeks issuance of a “mandamus order commanding ” the Labor Secretary “to immediately issue compensation award payment of the Petitioner’s colon cancer claim, ” and “commanding that Petitioner

. . . be given due process and fair play and grant all possible discovery against [Respondent ’ s] illegal abuses of the recordkeeping practices ” with regard to her father’s employment and medical records, particularly as to his radiation exposure. Pet. at 9

- 10.
II. LEGAL STANDARD The mandamus statute grants district courts “jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 136 1. Mandamus relief is proper only if “(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff.”
Fornaro v. James , 416 F.3d 63, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Power v. Barnhart , 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). The remedy of mandamus is “‘a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances.’” Power , 292 F.3d at 784 (quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980)).
III. ANALYSIS Respondents argue that Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus because , among other reasons, she has an adequate administrative remedy to redress the agency’s denial of her claims for survivo r benefits

. See Mem. at 20

- 21. The c ourt agre es
.5 Under Part E of the Compensation Act , a “ person adversely affected or aggrieved by a final decision ” may seek judicial review “ by filing

. . . within 60 days after the date on which that final decision was issued a written petition praying that such decision be modified or set aside .” 42 U.S.C. § 7385s

- 6

. Although Part B does not contain a similar provision, it provides that payment of a claim constitutes full satisfaction “[e]xcept as provided in part E.” Id

. § 7385 b. And, as Respondents not e, courts have reviewed Part B claims under the Administrat ive Procedure Act

. Mem. at
11 (citing cases); see also Houston v. U.S. D ep’t of Labor , 318 F. Supp. 3d 1028, 1034 (W.D. Ky. 2018) (“ Because Part B of the EEOICPA does not contain provisions allow ing for or precluding judicial review, courts use the APA ’ s ‘ arbitrary and capricious ’ standard when reviewing the [Final Adjudication Board’s] final decisions. ”) (citing Freeman v. U.S. Dep't of Labor , 653 F ed . App ’ x 405, 409 (6th Cir. 2016) )

. Consistent with the APA, moreover, t he Compensation Act confers jurisdiction in the district court “ to affirm, modify, or set aside ” the Secretary’s decision “ in whole or in part .” 42 U.S.C. § 7385s

- 6

. The decision may be mo dified or set aside “ only if the
court determines th at such decision was arbitrary and capricious .” 2 Id

.

2 As indicated supra at 3

- 4 , Petitioner seeks to compel compensation for her father’s “colon cancer claim,” which was the subject of the final decision issued on February 26, 2014

. Respondent s argue correctly that Petitioner’s filing of this civil action in January 2018 renders th at claim untimely. See Mem. at 15

- 16. Regardless , the administrative record R espondent s ha ve supplied

– while not dispositive of this mandamus action

– undermines a claim th at the agency’s decisions were arbitrary and capricious given the “deferential” standard applicable to APA claims. Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife , 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007). See L eiton Decl., Ex. 3 ( comprehensive denial of Petitioner’s colon c ancer claim ) ; Id ., Ex. 10 ( comprehensive denial of claim based on father’s emphyse ma and various other maladies ).6 Similarly, to the extent that Petitioner seeks to compel the production of documents independent of the discovery she allegedly requested during the administrative proceedings , the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, “ is the exclusive remedy for obtaining improperly withheld agency records .” Ray v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 811 F. Supp. 2d 245, 249 (D.D.C. 2011) (c iting Johnson v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys , 310 F.3d 771, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002) )

. The refore, the instant petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss will be GRANTED

. A corresponding order will issue separately.

Date: April 17, 2020 

## Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge