United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
THOMAS ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the motion to dismiss of Defendant United States
of America. (ECF No. 15.) Defendant is seeking dismissal of
this action on the ground that the Federal Employees
Compensation Act (“FECA”) provides the exclusive
remedy for Plaintiff's alleged injuries. Plaintiff has
not responded to the motion. For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
United States has filed its motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and asserts
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
action. As explained in Alvord Investments, LLC v. The
Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., 660 F.Supp.2d
850 (W.D. Tenn. 2009):
A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
may challenge the sufficiency of the complaint itself-in
which case it constitutes a facial attack-or it may challenge
the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction-in which
case the motion constitutes a factual attack. United
States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994). In
ruling upon a facial attack, the court must take as true the
allegations of the plaintiff's complaint and construe
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but in a
factual attack, the court does not presume that the
complaint's allegations are true and instead considers
other evidence bearing upon the question of subject matter
jurisdiction. DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511,
516 (6th Cir. 2004). When faced with a factual attack, the
trial court may, at its discretion, consider affidavits and
documents and even conduct a limited evidentiary hearing to
resolve any disputes as to jurisdictional facts. Ohio
Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 922 F.2d 320,
325 (6th Cir. 1990). The plaintiff bears the burden of
proving jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(1). Rogers v. Stratton Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d
913, 915 (6th Cir. 1986); see United Gov't Sec.
Officers of Am. v. Akal Sec., Inc., 475 F.Supp.2d 732,
736 (S.D. Ohio 2006).
present case, Plaintiff alleges that, on April 28, 2014, he
was driving a vehicle owned by the General Services
Administration (“GSA”) when a vehicle owned by
the United States and driven by Shawn Hayes, a United States
employee, collided with Plaintiff's vehicle causing
Plaintiff to be injured. Defendant has submitted unrefuted
evidence that, at the time of the accident, Plaintiff was an
employee of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and was
on the job.
FECA establishes a workers' compensation program for
federal employees who are injured while performing their
duties. The Secretary of Labor is vested with the
power to resolve any disputes regarding the scope of the Act,
and the Secretary's decision as to coverage is not
subject to judicial review. Under the FECA, federal employees
are “guaranteed the right to receive immediate, fixed
benefits, regardless of fault and without need for
litigation, but in return, they lose the right to sue the
government.” “[O]nce an injury falls within the
coverage of FECA, its remedies are exclusive and no other
claims can be entertained by the court.”
there is no dispute that Plaintiff was employed by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and on the job at the time of the
relevant events. Thus, Plaintiff's injuries fall within
the purview of FECA, and this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because FECA provides the exclusive remedy for
Plaintiff's work-related injuries. Accordingly, the
motion to dismiss of Defendant United States is GRANTED.
 Alvord Investments, 660
F.Supp.2d at 854.
 (Cmplt., ECF No. 1.)
 (Fax, Def's Ex. A, ECF No.