Agustin v. Su

Background

Remigio I. Agustin, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Julie Su in her capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor. He alleged violations of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C. § 8102 et seq., and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He requested a nationwide preliminary injunction, declaratory relief, damages, and an order requiring the agency to act.

According to the complaint, Agustin is a former civilian Navy employee who suffered serious injuries in the 1990s. The Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) accepted his FECA claim and administered disability benefits. OWCP stopped paying some bills for psychiatric treatment by Dr. Vasdeep Kahlon in 2020. The agency later required Agustin to submit an updated medical assessment and scheduled a Second Opinion examination with a government-approved physician.

Agustin did not attend the examination. He attributed that failure to unclear instructions and his symptoms, and he argued that the examination and the agency’s Statement of Accepted Facts were unlawful or inaccurate. OWCP suspended his benefits under 5 U.S.C. § 8123(d), but the benefits were reinstated retroactively three days after he filed this lawsuit. The agency later scheduled another examination, which Agustin also did not attend, and ultimately stated that it was not pursuing another suspension at that time.

Claims and jurisdiction

The court construed the complaint liberally to assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act for FECA violations and claims for procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment. The theories included that OWCP suspended benefits without adequate process, improperly required a Second Opinion examination, denied notice and an opportunity to respond concerning the Statement of Accepted Facts, and failed to pay Dr. Kahlon’s bills.

The Secretary moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Agustin had standing. It resolved the case instead on the jurisdictional bar created by FECA.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that FECA creates a comprehensive and exclusive workers’ compensation system for federal employees. Under 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b), the Secretary’s decision to allow or deny a payment generally is not reviewable by another federal official or by a court, including through an order requiring agency action. Courts retain jurisdiction over two narrow categories: constitutional challenges and claims that the agency violated a clear statutory mandate or prohibition.

The court held that Agustin’s allegations did not fit either exception. FECA authorizes the Secretary to require a beneficiary to undergo a medical examination, and it authorizes suspension of benefits when the beneficiary fails to submit to that examination. Reviewing the agency’s decision to require the examination would effectively review an intermediate step in the benefits determination, which the statute places within the Secretary’s authority.

The court also rejected Agustin’s due-process theory as a basis for jurisdiction. It said that a plaintiff must identify a protected liberty or property interest and a denial of adequate procedural protections. Although Agustin had a recognized property interest in FECA benefits, the record did not suggest that his benefits were suspended without notice or an opportunity to respond, or that he lacked adequate procedures after the suspension. The court noted that Agustin did not use OWCP’s administrative appeal procedures and concluded that he could not then claim that he was denied procedural due process. The court also found no identified protected right to receive treatment specifically from Dr. Kahlon.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It stated that the defects were unlikely to be cured but that it was not fully clear that amendment would be futile. Agustin could file an amended complaint conforming to the order by February 29, 2024. The order prohibited adding new defendants or causes of action without the court’s permission and stated that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b).