Joan SHEEHAN, Formerly Known as Joan Wycoff, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

Ninth Circuit

Joan SHEEHAN, Formerly Known as Joan Wycoff, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

917 F.2d 424, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1664, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19582, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,378, 54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 688, 1990 WL 169505

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided November 6, 1990·No. 88-15120·Published·Cited by 21 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The opinion filed February 16, 1990 is amended as follows: (1) add the following footnote after “(citations omitted).” on line 12, 896 F.2d 1168, 1174:

Our decision reviewing the scope of FTCA coverage in this case does not conflict with the cases from other circuits cited by the government in its petition for rehearing. Each of those cases denies review of the Secretary’s decisions in circumstances where “coverage in and of itself” is the issue. See Grijalva v. United States, 781 F.2d 472 (5th Cir.1986) (whether injury occurred while employee was at work); Heilman v. United States, 731 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir.1984) (whether injury occurred while plaintiff was Navy employee); DiPippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3d Cir.1982) (whether injury was work-related); Gill v. United States, 641 F.2d 195 (5th Cir.1981) (same).

and (2) strike the final paragraph on 896 F.2d at 1174 beginning “Moreover, we have jurisdiction____”

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny appellee’s petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en bane and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. (Fed.R.App.P. 35.)

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

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

ORDER

The opinion filed February 16, 1990 is amended as follows: (1) add the following footnote after “(citations omitted).” on line 12, 896 F.2d 1168, 1174:

Our decision reviewing the scope of FTCA coverage in this case does not conflict with the cases from other circuits cited by the government in its petition for rehearing. Each of those cases denies review of the Secretary’s decisions in circumstances where “coverage in and of itself” is the issue. See Grijalva v. United States, 781 F.2d 472 (5th Cir.1986) (whether injury occurred while employee was at work); Heilman v. United States, 731 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir.1984) (whether injury occurred while plaintiff was Navy employee); DiPippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14 (3d Cir.1982) (whether injury was work-related); Gill v. United States, 641 F.2d 195 (5th Cir.1981) (same).

and (2) strike the final paragraph on 896 F.2d at 1174 beginning “Moreover, we have jurisdiction____”

With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny appellee’s petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en bane and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. (Fed.R.App.P. 35.)

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

Joan SHEEHAN, Formerly Known as Joan Wycoff, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, 917 F.2d 424, 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1664, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 19582, 55 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,378, 54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 688, 1990 WL 169505 (9th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

917 F.2d 424 (Joan SHEEHAN, Formerly Known as Joan Wycoff, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related