was to be his only remedy”), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 875, 80 S.Ct. 139, 4 L.Ed.2d 114 (1959); Scalia v. United States, 475 F.Supp. 1040, 1042 (S.D.N.Y.1979) (a “significant limitation [of the waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in the Tort Claims Act] is contained in FECA, which expressly states that any illness or injury for which compensation is provided by FECA may not be the subject of a suit under the Tort Claims Act”). The applicability of FECA to United States Postal Service employees is clearly set forth in 39 U.S.C. § 1005(e). That section states: Officers and employees of the Postal Service shall be covered by subchapter I of Chapter 81 of title 5, relating to compensation for work injuries. 39 U.S.C. § 1005(c); see e.g. Griffin v. United States, 703 F.2d 321 (8th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The complaint in this action alleges that the
holding that the injury sustained by the utility is damnum absque injuria holding that feca is the sole remedy for the back injury sustained on the job by a us postal service employee holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act