3 Cl.Ct. 323 (1983), aff'd, 732 F.2d 168 (Fed.Cir.1984), the plaintiff argued that compensation had been awarded but never disbursed. Id. at 328. The court found that review was inappropriate. Id. at 328-29. 3 . Various other courts have likewise limited the scope of § 8128(b). See, e.g., Czerkies v. United States Dep’t of Labor, 73 F.3d 1435, 1441 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc) (stating that "[wjhen all that a claimant is seeking is benefits on the basis of an error of fact or law by the administering agency, judicial review is barred altogether”); Stephens v. Office of Worker’s Compensation Program, 721 F.2d 642, 642 (8th Cir.1983) (finding no jurisdiction to review denial of compensation for air traffic controller's hearing loss); DiPippa v. United States, 687 F.2d 14, 17 (3rd Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Courts have found that it is appropriate to
holding that an employer is only allowed to be reimbursed from a tort recovery to the extent that the recovery duplicates the elements of damage covered by compensation benefits holding that the application of feca to tort claims bars all other recovery holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract holding that whether in tort or contract all malpractice claims are covered by the same statute of limitations