- 8 -
the nature of a workmen’s compensation act if it allows for
disability payments for any reason other than on-the-job
injuries. See Haar v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 864, 868 (1982),
affd. per curiam 709 F.2d 1206 (8th Cir. 1983). If the statute
does not qualify, then the fact that the taxpayer’s injury was
work related is irrelevant. See Smelley v. United States, 806 F.
Supp. 932, 935 (N.D. Ala. 1992), affd. per curiam 3 F.3d 389
(11th Cir. 1993).
Disability retirement payments received under FERS are not
workmen’s compensation payments. See Merker v. Commissioner,
supra; Wham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-625, affd. without
published opinion 812 F.2d 1402 (4th Cir. 1987). Although
petitioner suffers from a disability which may have arisen in the
course of his employment with the FAA, a Federal agency, that
alone is insufficient to meet the requirements of section
104(a)(1). Petitioner received his disability annuity under
FERS, 5 U.S.C. ch. 84 (1994). Under FERS, an employee shall be
considered disabled only if the employee is found by OPM to be
“unable, because of disease or injury, to render useful and
efficient service in the employee’s position.” 5 U.S.C. sec.
8451(a)(1)(B) (1994). Disability under FERS does not distinguish
between injuries occurring on the job or elsewhere; rather, the
focus is on whether the employee is able to perform the tasks of
his employment in a “useful and efficient” manner. See Merker v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011