Bennett v. Barnett

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reversing plaintiff’s damage award because district court lacked juris- diction over emotional distress claim under FTCA when Sec- retary ruled the same emotional distress injury was covered by FECA
• reversing plaintiff’s damage award because district court lacked juris- diction over emotional distress claim under FTCA when Sec- retary ruled the same emotional distress injury was covered by FECA
• holding FECA coverage exists for emotional-distress claims
• holding FECA coverage exists for emotional-distress claims
• “While Bennett submitted her claim, it was not denied because of lack of coverage under the FECA, but for lack of proof. By ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence, the Secretary thought coverage existed. Thus, the district court did not have jurisdiction to try the claim.”
• claiming emotional distress from on-the-job harassment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).