Document: 467 U.S. 167 104 S.Ct. 2284 81 L.Ed.2d 134 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Paul B. LORENZETTI. No. 83-838. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 23, 1984. Decided May 29, Syllabus Respondent, a Federal Government employee injured in an automobile accident Pennsylvania while on official business, received payment from under Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) for his medical expenses and lost wages. Under FECA, is not liable losses such as pain suffering. Respondent subsequently instituted tort action state court against driver other automobile. Such generally limited No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance to recovery noneconomic like After respondent eventually settled case sum that represented compensation alone, sought be reimbursed its FECA payments out settlement, asserting it was entitled reimbursement pursuant provision (5 U.S.C. § 8132) prescribing whenever federal suffers injury or death compensable "under circumstances creating legal liability person than pay damages," beneficiaries receive "money property satisfaction result suit settlement," they "shall refund amount paid by States." declined over requested commenced District Court, seeking declaratory judgment Government's right 8132 confined damages awards settlements economic sort covered award settlement suffering immune 8132. The granted summary States, but Appeals reversed. Held: Section entitles any made third-party personal death, regardless whether On face, statute does confine rights subrogee with respect specific classes employees FECA; instead, expressly creates general obtains without regard employee's includes are excluded coverage. This reading reinforced parallel terms 8131, which governs itself prosecute action. And nothing FECA's legislative history establishes means something less what says. While no-fault insurance statutes were existence when enacted 1916, possibility recoveries might encompass well known, Congress has acted restrict types may obtain reimbursement. Nor there inconsistency between interpretation adopted here underlying purposes provision. Pp. 173-179. 710 F.2d 982 (CA3 1983), Carolyn Corwin, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Charles Sovel, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 (FECA), 5 8101 et seq., provides comprehensive system who sustain work-related injuries. As part system, receives required reimburse those payments, specified extent, he third party question presented this recover wages whose compensates him solely 2 * facts clear. Paul Lorenzetti special agent Bureau Investigation. November 21, 1977, Philadelphia business. engaged performance their duties expenses, wages, vocational rehabilitation. See §§ 8102-8107. Respondent's injuries serious enough require rehabilitation, received, Fund, $1,970.81 8147. Because States' exclusive, see 8116(c), cannot compensated FECA. 3 subject (No-fault Act), Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 40, 1009.101 seq. (Purdon Supp.1984-1985), substantially alters conventional accidents. Act, victim must look own carrier cover basic losses, including unlimited up $15,000 1009.104, 1009.106, 1009.202. maintain automobile, suffering; only extent otherwise because exceed statutory limits (such lost-wage ceiling) Act. 1009.301(a)(4) (a)(5). In case, respondent's had been fully result, vehicle moved exclude evidence trial. trial did rule formally motion indicated agreement recovering losses. $8,500, figure alone. 4 thereafter settlement.1 contains several provisions designed shift burden independently if also damages, Secretary Labor either name assign enforce liability. When maintains name, accordance relevant reads: "If payable [FECA] caused beneficiary money behalf, beneficiary, after deducting therefrom costs reasonable attorney's fee, shall credit surplus future same injury."2 6 asserted 7 and, Eastern Pennsylvania. He declaration opposition, took position created conditioned nature loss 8 States. 550 F.Supp. 997 (1982). relied principally Ostrowski v. Dept. Office Workers Programs, 653 229 (CA6 1981), aff'g Roman Catholic Archdiocese Detroit, 479 200 (ED Mich.1979), Sixth Circuit identical virtue similar Michigan resolved issue favor Government. Like courts Ostrowski, looked language itself. It observed: " 'There no delineating two damages—one gives rise duty one not.' F.Supp., at 999, quoting 203. Instead, encompassed all recovered parties. found further support both regulations promulgated history, aware harms yet taken scope statute. 1000. 9 appeal, Third (1983). Unlike passing references reasoned that, prior advent statutes, "Congress could have anticipated scenario" "does speak situation." F.2d, 985. addressed instead deemed Appeals' view, purpose two-fold: prevent obtaining double minimize cost Id., 984. These goals, turn, overarching aim treating 'in fair equitable manner.' 985, S.Rep. 93-1081, p. (1974), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, 5341. 10 rejected Court's ground would serve "manifestly unfair" statutes. goal preventing since Commonwealth's scheme guarantees include elements At time, allowing frustrate congressional fairly equitably, workmen's impose obligation private make reimbursements circumstances. 985-986. improper read analogously Ibid. recognized, however, squarely inconsistent Ostrowski. 11 We certiorari resolve conflict 464 1068, 972, 79 211 (1984). now reverse. II 12 answer evident face statute, seems us, requires disputed sum. liability," find little room confusion about meaning language. imposes conditions precedent "refund . first suffered damages. second Here, met: gave liability, $8,500 claim amounts Contrary argument, coverage.3 8131(a)(1) employee, discretion Labor, "assign [a third-party] liability" arising (emphasis added). causes accidents unqualified one; excuse cause H.R.Rep. 678, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., (1916) (an "any action" tortious conduct added)). authorized compromise so assigned "deduct [from recovery] place Fund already beneficiary," reserving one-fifth settlement. 8131(c). There forfeiting refused do so, 8131(b), maintained directly benefit explained why unwarranted 8131 should construed diminish reimbursable interest himself.4 13 Nothing persuades us 1916 injury-compensation employees. Sept. 7, ch. 458, 39 Stat. 742, repealed Pub.L. 89-554, 8(a), 80 632, 643. 27 original vested differ materially portions today.5 section "not increasing compensation, reimbursing indemnifying future." Dahn Davis, 258 421, 430, 42 320, 322, 66 L.Ed. 696 (1922). point suggest deliberations particular categories death. see, e.g., 53 Cong.Rec. 10909-10910 (remarks Rep. Barkley); effort reduce breadth insulate provided added protection 8132, most notably net 89-488, 10, 255, 14 Neither we Admittedly, demand turn simply program U.S., 321; cf. supra, 13-14. self-evident latter advanced recovery, chosen subordinate minimizing expenditures concerns, amended reserve done explicitly. liberty fashion additional limitation express authorization Congress. 15 believed Congress' declared intent "be treated manner" "strive attain being model employer." However useful these statements resolving ambiguities scheme, license ignore plain concerned wide variety amendments none altered balance struck interests addition, amply demonstrates, unfairness inequity arises operation alone provision's interaction distinct schemes. Even desire "a employer" sufficient basis interpreting avoid intrinsic inequities, hardly inferring meant sacrifice substantial order extrinsic complications introduced independent actions. true, seemed believe, will leave systematically worse off counterparts sector; prevailing employer suffering, even portion attributable clearly separable 2A A. Larson, Law Workmen's 74.35, pp. 14-476 14-478 16 justify conclusion adoption attendant restriction pointed above, fact foresee mean risk trench More important, changing laws led unforeseen consequences judicially expanded take changes into account. Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co. Director, Workers' 461 624, 635-636, 103 2045, 2050-2052, 76 194 Congress, courts, revise longstanding legislation accommodate effects social conditions. here. III 17 For reasons, hold Appeals, accordingly, 18 ordered. share arrived $1,620.24. roughly represents distribution satisfying interest. significant limitation: receipts, retain deducted. available 8131(c) prosecutes behalf argues inherently ambiguous term "damages" bears readings. particular, suggests literally well. create hence literal leads unintended results unless informed policies relied. agree disagree reference ambiguity dispelled reach conclusion. refers back "injury death" party's thereby excluding property-damages recovery. 8132's predecessor clearer regard, stated arose "if some therefor. ." 27, 747-748 added), use "therefor" demonstrates refer phrase death." "Therefor" omitted replaced 1966, omission substantive change. 7(a), 631. argue more alternative strained provided: "[I]f therefor, receives, brought person, shall, apply [as unmatured obligations injury]."

Category: 7