USCA1 Opinion
March 18, 1994
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. No. 93-2193
ANTHONY M. KOWAL,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ROBERT B. REICH, ETC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
ERRATA SHEET
This opinion of this court issued on February 25, 1994, is
amended as follows:
Page 2, last line, please change " Loc. R. 26.1" to "Loc R.
27.1."
February 25, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 93-2193
ANTHONY M. KOWAL,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
ROBERT B. REICH, ETC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Stephen R. Kaplan on brief for appellant.
_________________
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Karen L.
________________ _________
Goodwin, Assistant United Stated Attorney, on brief for appellee.
_______
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. The district court decision
___________
dismissing this case is affirmed on the grounds that the case
is moot. See Garita Hotel Ltd. v. Ponce Federal Bank, 958
___ _________________ ___________________
F.2d 15, 19 (1st Cir. 1992) (appellate court "has
discretionary authority to affirm a judgment on any
indepenently sufficient ground exemplified in the record.")
Since appellant filed his complaint, the government has
provided all of the relief sought therein. The only
exception is a request for an assurance by the local Office
of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP") that it will "stay
in contact and share further generated documents." Appellant
has failed, however, to state any grounds upon which he would
be entitled to such relief.
Appellant's contention that the OWCP continues to
adhere to a disability cessation date called into question by
the hearing representative is a matter not within this
court's jurisdiction. See 5 U.S.C. 8128(b); Paluca v.
___ ______
Secretary of Labor, 813 F.2d 524, 528 (1st Cir.), cert.
___________________ ____
denied, 484 U.S. 943 (1987). The Federal Employees'
______
Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. 8101 et seq., provides for the
__ ___
appeal of such payment decisions to an OWCP hearing
representative or to the Employees' Compensation Appeals
Board.
-3-
___
The district court decision granting the
government's motion to dismiss is summarily affirmed pursuant
to Loc. R. 27.1.
-4-
___