In the case of Paula L. Buford v. United States, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning federal employees and their entitlement to compensation for injury or disability resulting from their employment. Paula Buford had filed a claim under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) after she was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome which she attributed to her job as a postal worker. The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs denied her claim stating that it wasn't clear whether her condition was caused by work-related activities or other factors such as obesity and diabetes. Buford appealed this decision in court arguing that FECA only requires proof that employment conditions could have caused an injury, not definitive evidence they did cause it. However, both lower courts upheld the denial of benefits agreeing with OWCP's interpretation of FECA requirements. The Supreme Court affirmed these rulings holding that while FECA does cover injuries potentially caused by employment conditions, there must be substantial evidence linking those conditions directly to an employee’s injury or illness for them to receive compensation benefits.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Paula L. Buford v. United States argued that the majority's interpretation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(1) was incorrect and overly broad, potentially leading to unjust outcomes. The dissenters believed that a firearm must be actively used or carried during an offense for it to qualify as a "crime of violence" under this statute, not merely present at the scene or involved in some tangential way. They expressed concern about potential overreach by prosecutors and law enforcement if any involvement of a firearm could lead to enhanced penalties under this provision, even when there is no direct connection between the weapon and violent conduct. This view emphasizes restraint in interpreting criminal statutes, arguing for narrower readings that limit rather than expand government power.