Cantrell v. United States, 10147.

Decision Date25 January 1966
Docket NumberNo. 10147.,10147.
Citation356 F.2d 915
PartiesWillie H. CANTRELL, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, C. Douglas Dillon, Secretary of Treasury, Mortimer M. Caplin, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, John W. Macy, Jr., Chairman, and Frederick J. Lawton and Robert E. Hampton, Members of U. S. Civil Service Commission, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Edward Berlin, Attorney, Department of Justice, for appellee.

No appearance for appellant.

Before SOBELOFF and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges, and MAXWELL, District Judge.

SOBELOFF, Circuit Judge:

In 1952 appellant Willie E. Cantrell suffered an injury to his leg in the course of his employment with the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Treasury Department, for which he had worked since 1947. The Federal Employees Compensation Board determined that he had a 61% partial disability in his leg, and awarded him $10,655.43 in compensation benefits under 5 U.S.C. § 755 (1958). In 1957, on the application of the Treasury Department, the Civil Service Commission found that Cantrell had become disabled, and retired him on a monthly annuity of $150.00. 5 U.S.C. §§ 2252 et seq. (1958). Thereafter Cantrell filed this complaint in the Western District of South Carolina, Greenville Division (Simons, J.), challenging the Commission's authority to determine appellant's "disability" status. On appeal from dismissal of that complaint, the parties have waived oral argument and submitted the matter on brief and on the record.

Appellant contends that because his original leg injury was employment-related, only the Compensation Board could determine his physical condition, and since the Board found only a partial disability of his leg, the Civil Service Commission could not for purposes of retirement find him "disabled."

However, the Compensation Act and the Retirement Act cover very different situations. The former provides compensation in lieu of damages for injuries sustained in the course of the work, and the Board is primarily concerned with the nature and extent of such injuries and damages. On the other hand, a disability subjecting an employee to retirement need not be work-related. The Civil Service Commission's inquiry is primarily directed not to the nature of the injury itself, but to the employee's general ability to perform his duties. See 5 U.S.C. § 2251(g). The injury is considered incidentally, together with other circumstances, in determining working capacity....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Scarborough v. Office of Personnel Management
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • January 23, 1984
    ...Matricciana v. Hampton, 416 F.Supp. 288, 289 (D.Md.1976); Cantrell v. United States, 240 F.Supp. 851, 853 (W.D.S.C.1965), aff'd, 356 F.2d 915 (4th Cir.1966). The genesis of the "Scroggins formula" actually predates the Gaines decision quoted by the court. See Smith v. Dulles, 236 F.2d 739, ......
  • Parodi v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 25, 1983
    ...Matricciana v. Hampton, 416 F.Supp. 288, 289 (D.Md.1976); Cantrell v. United States, 240 F.Supp. 851, 853 (W.D.S.C.1965), aff'd, 356 F.2d 915 (4th Cir. 1966). Thus, under this so-called Scroggins rule, courts treat section 8347(c) as limiting, rather than barring, judicial review otherwise ......
  • Parodi v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 21, 1982
    ...Matricciana v. Hampton, 416 F.Supp. 288, 289 (D.Md.1976); Cantrell v. United States, 240 F.Supp. 851, 853 (W.D.S.C.1965), aff'd, 356 F.2d 915 (4th Cir.1966).3 Thus, under this so-called Scroggins rule, courts treat section 8347(c) as limiting, rather than barring, judicial review otherwise ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT