Legal Opinion
Soeken v. Herman
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided February 17, 1999No. 98-2024PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THOMAS F. HOGAN, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion for dismissal. Defendants’ motion raises three issues. First, whether 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b) prevents the Court from reviewing the decision of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) that denied the award of benefits to plaintiff for violating a clear statutory mandate. Second, whether defendant’s interpretation of the term “physician,” which barred the use of “licensed certified psychotherapists” for use as medical experts, deprived the plaintiff of his due process rights. Finally, whether the…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Griffin v. BreckenridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Aref v. HolderDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Patricia Wise v. Robert Wilkie, SecretaryCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2020
- BPA International, Inc. v. Kingdom of SwedenDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. HermanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2000
- Johnson v. AshcroftDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.