Munn v. United States Department of Labor
714 F. App'x 387
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Munn, a former DS Special Agent, was injured in 1998 during a training exercise and later retired in 2001.
- Medical imaging in 2005 linked ongoing symptoms to the 1998 injury; Munn sought FECA benefits but was told no claim existed.
- Munn submitted FECA applications in 2013; OWCP initially failed to locate a claim and later flagged incomplete agency information.
- By 2014 OWCP denied benefits on timeliness grounds and lack of immediate supervisor notice; a hearing record developed additional medical evidence.
- A 2014 Hearing Representative reversed the denial; the case was remanded to address causation and timing; further medical submissions followed.
- In 2016 Munn filed suit in district court seeking APA review and Bivens relief; the district court dismissed both claims; Munn appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over APA claims. | Munn claims substantial constitutional due process violations warrant review. | FECA § 8128 bars judicial review of the Secretary's FECA decisions. | APA claims barred; no subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether Munn states a cognizable due process claim for administrative handling of FECA benefits. | Due process was violated by the agency's procedures in processing the FECA claim. | Record shows meaningful opportunity to be heard; no due process violation. | No colorable due process claim; district court properly dismissed. |
| Whether a Bivens claim against individual defendants can lie for FECA due process violations. | Bivens relief is available for due process violations in FECA proceedings. | No cognizable due process claim to support Bivens relief; FECA review bar applies to Bivens as well. | Bivens claims properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. United States Department of Labor, 221 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2000) (limited exception for substantial constitutional claims within FECA review)
- Woodruff v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Office of Workers Comp. Programs, 954 F.2d 634 (11th Cir. 1992) (exception for claims alleging a clear statutory mandate)
- Czerkies v. United States Department of Labor, 73 F.3d 1435 (7th Cir. 1996) (en banc; limits on relief where FECA remedies suffice)