Collins

194 Ct. Cl. 1037, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 161
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 21, 1971
DocketNo. 158-70
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 194 Ct. Cl. 1037 (Collins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Collins, 194 Ct. Cl. 1037, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 161 (cc 1971).

Opinion

Plaintiff seeks voidance of his retirement and reinstatement to the employee rolls with payment of back pay and leave due him, as well as $5,000,000 in actual and consequential damages. Plaintiff contends that he was retired under the disability retirement provision of the Civil Service Betirement Act without either plaintiff or his employing agency making application for such retirement. This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment, having been submitted without oral argument on the briefs of the parties. Upon consideration thereof, the court concluded (1) that plaintiff does not make a sufficient showing that his Civil Service disability retirement was either involuntary or invalid; (2) that in any event, the record shows from his own repeated statements that plaintiff [1038]*1038was not ready, willing and able to work, and is therefore not entitled to back pay. See Walker v. United States, 179 Ct. Cl. 723, 725 (1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1036 (1968); Everett v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 11, 15-16, 340 F. 2d 352, 354-55 (1965); (3) that this court cannot review or overturn the findings of the Bureau of Employees’ Compensation. Everett v. United States, supra, 169 Ct. Cl. at 17, 340 F. 2d at 356. It was not unconstitutional for Congress to preclude such review; (4) that the other aspects of plaintiff’s petition are either beyond this court’s jurisdiction as sounding in tort or requiring specific relief, or are clearly without merit (Ainsworth v. United States, 185 Ct. Cl. 110, 122, 399 F. 2d 176, 183 (1968)). On May 21, 1971 the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Deborah Katz Pueschel v. United States
297 F.3d 1371 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
Anderson v. United States
16 Cl. Ct. 546 (Court of Claims, 1989)
Landman
196 Ct. Cl. 778 (Court of Claims, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 Ct. Cl. 1037, 1971 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-cc-1971.