Court Opinion

ID: 2962409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:57:26.950576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:29.311390
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          March 18, 1994                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No.  No. 93-2193                                  ANTHONY M. KOWAL,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                ROBERT B. REICH, ETC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                                     ERRATA SHEET               This opinion of this  court issued on February 25,  1994, is          amended as follows:               Page 2,  last line, please change " Loc. R. 26.1" to "Loc R.          27.1."          February 25, 1994     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ___________________          No. 93-2193                                              ANTHONY M. KOWAL,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                ROBERT B. REICH, ETC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                  __________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                    [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ___________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ___________________               Stephen R. Kaplan on brief for appellant.               _________________               Donald K.  Stern,  United  States  Attorney,  and  Karen  L.               ________________                                   _________          Goodwin, Assistant United Stated Attorney, on brief for appellee.          _______                                  __________________                                  __________________                      Per  Curiam.         The  district  court  decision                      ___________            dismissing this case is affirmed on the grounds that the case            is moot.   See Garita Hotel  Ltd. v. Ponce Federal  Bank, 958                       ___ _________________     ___________________            F.2d   15,  19   (1st  Cir.   1992)  (appellate   court  "has            discretionary  authority   to  affirm   a  judgment  on   any            indepenently sufficient  ground exemplified in  the record.")            Since  appellant  filed  his complaint,  the  government  has            provided  all  of  the  relief  sought  therein.    The  only            exception is a request  for an assurance by the  local Office            of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP") that it will "stay            in contact and share further generated documents."  Appellant            has failed, however, to state any grounds upon which he would            be entitled to such relief.                      Appellant's  contention that the  OWCP continues to            adhere to a disability cessation date called into question by            the  hearing  representative  is  a matter  not  within  this            court's jurisdiction.    See 5  U.S.C.    8128(b); Paluca  v.                                     ___                       ______            Secretary  of Labor,  813  F.2d 524,  528  (1st Cir.),  cert.            ___________________                                     ____            denied,  484  U.S.  943   (1987).    The  Federal  Employees'            ______            Compensation  Act, 5 U.S.C.    8101 et seq., provides for the                                                __ ___            appeal  of   such  payment  decisions  to   an  OWCP  hearing            representative  or to  the  Employees'  Compensation  Appeals            Board.                                         -3-                                         ___                      The   district   court   decision    granting   the            government's motion to dismiss is summarily affirmed pursuant            to Loc. R. 27.1.                                          -4-                                         ___