FEDERAL · 5 U.S.C. · Chapter 81
Total disability
Current through Pub. L. 119-102
(a)If the disability is total, the United States shall pay the employee during the disability monthly monetary compensation equal to 662/3 percent of his monthly pay, which is known as his basic compensation for total disability.
(b)The loss of use of both hands, both arms, both feet, or both legs, or the loss of sight of both eyes, is prima facie permanent total disability.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
5 U.S.C. § 8105 (Total disability) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
United States v. Prentice Harold Dawkins
202 F.3d 711 (Fourth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Arcadipane
41 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 1994)
Cletis Meredith Miller v. William Bolger, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service and the United States of America
802 F.2d 660 (Third Circuit, 1986)
United States v. Thomas M. Kappes, III
936 F.2d 227 (Sixth Circuit, 1991)
Gerald L. Brumley v. United States Department of Labor
28 F.3d 746 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Susan Carol FITZGERALD, Defendant-Appellant
147 F.3d 1101 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)
Szedlock v. Tenet
61 F. App'x 88 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)
Donna Olson, for the Estate of Gordon E. Olson, Deceased v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security
170 F.3d 820 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
Norman A. Johnson v. Merit Systems Protection Board
812 F.2d 705 (Federal Circuit, 1987)
Johnson v. Sullivan
764 F. Supp. 1053 (D. Maryland, 1991)
In Re the Marriage of Geigle
920 P.2d 251 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1996)
Taylor v. United States
92 Fed. Cl. 36 (Federal Claims, 2010)
United States v. William C. Austin
817 F.2d 1352 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)
Bell v. United States Dept. of Labor
560 F. Supp. 515 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1983)
Lee v. United States
41 Fed. Cl. 36 (Federal Claims, 1998)
Brumley v. United States Department of Labor
827 F. Supp. 1409 (E.D. Arkansas, 1993)
Donna Olson v. Kenneth Apfel
(Eighth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Machi
962 F. Supp. 442 (S.D. New York, 1997)
Roberts v. United States Postal Service
88 F. App'x 417 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 535.)
Editorial Notes
In subsection (a), the words "Except as otherwise provided in sections 751–756, 757–781, 783–791, and 793 of this title" are omitted as surplusage.
In subsection (b), the words "Loss, or" are omitted as included in "loss of use of". The words "or the loss of sight of both eyes" are substituted for "or both eyes or the sight thereof".
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
In subsection (b), the words "Loss, or" are omitted as included in "loss of use of". The words "or the loss of sight of both eyes" are substituted for "or both eyes or the sight thereof".
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.