Calderon Et Al. v. Tobin, Secretary of Labor, Et Al., 187 F.2d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1951)

Federal Circuits, D.C. Cir. (January 04, 1951)

Docket number: 10151


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/calderon-v-tobin-secretary-of-labor-36636620
Id. vLex: VLEX-36636620

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Cir. - Charles W. Hancock, Appellant, v. James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, and William Mccauley, Director, United States Employees' Compensation Commission., 231 F.2d 652 (3rd Cir. 1956)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Germana E. Prado Del Castillo, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 272 F.2d 326 (9th Cir. 1959)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - John Soderman, Appellant, v. United States Civil Service Commission, Appellee., 313 F.2d 694 (9th Cir. 1963)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Edith Blanc, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee., 244 F.2d 708 (2nd Cir. 1957)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - Deborah Katz Pueschel, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States, Defendant-Appellee., 297 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Gregory R. Czerkies, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration and Office of Workers Compensation Programs, Defendants-Appellees., 73 F.3d 1435 (7th Cir. 1996)

Text:

F. Trowbridge vom Baur, Washington, D. C., with whom Ralph E. Becker and Joseph Paull Marshall, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants.

Ward E. Boote, Asst. Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., with whom George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., and Isidor Lazarus, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. Joseph F. Goetten, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before PRETTYMAN and BAZELON, Circuit Judges, and STONE, Circuit Judge (Retired), sitting by designation.

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Maximo Calderon, being then an employee of the United States, died as the result of injuries sustained in the course of that employment. The Surrogate's Court of the County of New York, after litigation, issued letters of administration to Aurea Calderon and refused to revoke those letters upon the petition of Adela Calderon. Thereafter Aurea, Adela and Celia Calderon were claimants before the Bureau of Employees' Compensation of the Federal Security Agency for compensation as the widow of the deceased. The Director of the Bureau and the Appeals Board held Celia Calderon to be the widow within the meaning of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 751 et seq. This suit followed.

It appears that the deceased had a succession of wives, at least one of whom, late in the succession, was ceremonially married to him, and none of these relationships was formally dissolved. The federal Board selected the first in chronological order. It might be observed, although it is of no importance to the decision in this case, that she was not a party to the New York surrogate proceeding.

The Federal Compensation Act, as amended,1 provides: "The action of the Administrator or his designees in allowing or denying any payment under sections 751-791 and 793 of this title shall be final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact, and not subject to review by any other official of the United States, or by any court by mandamus or otherwise, and credit shall be allowed in the accounts of any certifying or disbursing officer for payments in accordance with such action."

The federal employees' compensation allowances are grants by the Congress, and the agents of the Congress have power to determine the recipients of such grants. If Congress chose to preclude judicial review of the selection of the objects of its bounty, it could do so.2 The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is not involved.

We are in agreement with the District Court, and its judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Notes:

1 5 U.S.C.A. § 793

2 Cf. 38 U.S.C.A. § 705; Barnett v. Hines, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 217, 105 F.2d 96, certiorari denied, 1939, 308 U.S. 573, 60 S. Ct. 88, 84 L.Ed. 480; Van Horne v. Hines, 1941, 74 App.D.C. 214, 122 F. 2d 207, certiorari denied, 1941, 314 U. S. 689, 62 S.Ct. 360, 86 L.Ed. 552

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access