Dorcas J. Daniels-Lumley v. United States of America

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming without-prejudice dismissal because plaintiff-appellant had not taken opportunities to pursue administrative remedy
• [T]he Secretary of Labor must be given the primary opportunity to rule on the applicability of [FECA].”
• “[U]nless plaintiff's 5 injuries were clearly not compensable under the F.E.C.A. . . . the Secretary of Labor must be given the primary opportunity to rule on the applicability of the Act to this case.”
• “unless plaintiff's injuries were clearly not compensable under the F.E.C.A . . . we believe that the Secretary of Labor must be given the primary opportunity to rule on the applicability of the Act to this case.”
• noting approvingly that district court did not decide duty issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).