opinion: Charles COBIA and Evelyn Cobia, husband and wife, Appellants, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
  No. 9276.
  United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
  Oct. 30, 1967.
  Richard Richards, Ogden, Utah (Froerer, Horowitz, Parker, Richards, Thornley & Critchlow, Ogden, Utah, with him on brief), for appellants.
  Robert E. Kopp, Washington, D. C. (Barefoot Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., William T. Thurman, U. S. Atty., Morton Hollander and J. F. Bishop, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., with him on brief), for appellee.
  Before PICKETT, HILL and HICKEY, Circuit Judges.
  HICKEY, Circuit Judge.
  Charles and Evelyn Cobia, husband and wife, appeal from a judgment in which the United States was given a non-suit in a Federal Tort Claims action.
  Recovery is sought under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. for injuries sustained by appellant Charles Cobia in a motor vehicle collision at Hill Air Force Base in which the United States confessed negligence as the proximate cause of the collision. Mr. Cobia made application for and continues to receive compensation for injuries under the Federal Employees Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
  The court found that application for and the continued acceptance of compensation under the FECA foreclosed the appellants from recovering under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We agree.
  Appellants argue that United States v. Udy, 381 F.2d 455 (10th Cir. 1967) determined that the collision out of which this claim arose was actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It is true the claims grew out of the same collision and this court determined the remedy under the Federal Tort Claims Act was available to Udy; however, Udy did not elect to proceed under the FECA and proceeded only under the Tort Claims Act, thereby giving the court an opportunity to exercise its judgment regarding the remedy.
  When application is made for FECA benefits, the determination of coverage is made by the Secretary of Labor or his designee and his finding is final and not subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. §§ 8145, 8128(b). Acceptance of benefits under the FECA is an injured employee’s exclusive remedy. 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c); Underwood v. United States, 207 F.2d 862 (10th Cir. 1953); United States v. Browning, 359 F.2d 937 (10th Cir. 1966).
  Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s determination that the appellants have no claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act because they have exercised a choice of procedure which denies review by the courts.
  Affirmed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama