Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03222/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott M. Burton
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SCOTT M. BURTON,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3222

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-0841-14-0691-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 11, 2016

______________________ 

SCOTT M. BURTON, Westerville, OH, pro se.

ROBERT C. BIGLER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., CLAUDIA 

BURKE. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3222 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/11/2016
2 BURTON v. OFFICE OF PERS. MGMT. 

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Scott M. Burton petitions for review of the decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board affirming the denial 

of his application for disability annuity payments between 

2012 and 2014. We affirm the Board’s decision. 

BACKGROUND

In 2004, Mr. Burton retired on disability from his position as a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service. At 

that time, he began receiving a disability retirement 

annuity under the Federal Employees Retirement System 

(“FERS”). He was also receiving social security disability 

benefits. Those benefits resulted in a setoff from his 

FERS annuity. Both the disability benefits and the 

annuity payments were subject to earnings limitations. 

By statute, if Mr. Burton’s income exceeded a threshold 

amount for social security disability benefits or the FERS 

annuity, his payments under the respective system would

be suspended. 

In 2010 the Social Security Administration suspended 

Mr. Burton’s social security disability payments because 

his income exceeded the earnings limitation for social 

security. Despite the suspension of his social security 

disability benefits, the Office of Personnel Management 

(“OPM”) continued to reduce Mr. Burton’s FERS disability 

annuity as if his social security disability benefits were 

still being paid. The setoff resulted in a loss of $629 per 

month to Mr. Burton. OPM did not correct the error until 

2014.

From 2011 through part of 2013, Mr. Burton earned 

additional income. He contends that he was compelled to 

earn that additional income in order to replace the loss 

resulting from the erroneous setoff that reduced his 

annuity payments. Beginning in 2011, Mr. Burton’s 

additional income placed him above the earnings limitaCase: 15-3222 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/11/2016
BURTON v. OFFICE OF PERS. MGMT. 3

tion for the FERS disability annuity. As directed by 

statute, Mr. Burton’s disability annuity payments were 

supposed to continue for 180 days past the end of the year 

in which the threshold was exceeded and then should 

have stopped. 5 U.S.C. § 8455(a)(2). In Mr. Burton’s case, 

the 180-day period would have expired on June 30, 2012. 

However, for reasons that are unclear, OPM continued to 

make disability annuity payments to Mr. Burton until

August 1, 2013. OPM has waived its right to recover the 

overpayments for that 13-month period.

Mr. Burton sought to have his FERS annuity reinstated beginning on January 1, 2014, but his request was 

denied because his 2013 income continued to exceed the 

earnings threshold for disability annuity payments. OPM 

subsequently granted Mr. Burton’s request for reinstatement of his disability annuity as of January 1, 2015, 

because his 2014 income was below the earnings threshold. 

In September 2014 OPM corrected the setoff error and 

paid Mr. Burton $13,279 for the incorrectly withheld 

setoff between November 1, 2010, and June 30, 2012. 

OPM did not award Mr. Burton additional payments for 

July 2012 through August 2013, because it determined 

that Mr. Burton should not have received any benefits for

that 13-month period. 

Mr. Burton has appealed OPM’s decision not to pay 

him disability annuity benefits between July 1, 2012, and 

December 31, 2014. He contends that he should receive 

the full amount of the FERS disability annuity for the 

years that his income exceeded the statutory threshold

amount (i.e., between 2011 and 2013). His argument is 

that if OPM had correctly terminated the social security 

disability payment setoff after those payments were 

suspended, his disability annuity would not have been 

reduced and he would not have been compelled to earn 

Case: 15-3222 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/11/2016
4 BURTON v. OFFICE OF PERS. MGMT. 

the additional income that caused his annuity to be 

terminated. 

On Mr. Burton’s appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, the administrative judge who was assigned to 

Mr. Burton’s case ruled that he was not entitled to annuity payments during the period that his earnings exceeded 

the statutory threshold amount. The full Board denied 

Mr. Burton’s petition for review and affirmed the administrative judge’s ruling. Mr. Burton now appeals to this 

court.

DISCUSSION

The income limitations for a disability retirement annuity are governed by 5 U.S.C. § 8455 and are not discretionary. It is undisputed that Mr. Burton’s income 

exceeded the statutory threshold from 2011 to 2013. For 

example, in 2013 the threshold for Mr. Burton was

$44,418.40, which is 80% of the salary for the permanent 

position from which he retired. In 2013, Mr. Burton 

earned $47,910, or $3,491.60 more than the statutory 

threshold. Mr. Burton points to no authority giving him a 

right to annuity payments notwithstanding the fact that 

he earned more than the statutory threshold amount set 

forth in 5 U.S.C. § 8455(a)(2). This court has consistently 

held that section 8455 does not provide for exceptions or 

waivers in its application. See, e.g., Daniel v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., 469 F. App’x 850 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Rodriguez 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 427 F. App’x 878 (Fed. Cir. 2011); 

Daniel v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 245 F. App’x 969 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). 

Section 8455 required the termination of Mr. Burton’s 

annuity once his income exceeded the threshold amount. 

OPM is not empowered to disregard such statutory directives for calculating disability annuity payments. See 

Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 430 

(1990) (“[I]t would be most anomalous for a judicial order 

to require a Government official, such as the officers of 

Case: 15-3222 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/11/2016
BURTON v. OFFICE OF PERS. MGMT. 5

OPM, to make an extrastatutory payment of federal 

funds.”). The prohibition against making unauthorized 

disability payments contrasts with the authorization 

granted in other statutes, such as 5 U.S.C. § 8470(b), 

which provides that OPM will not seek recovery of overpayments from an individual when, in the agency’s judgment, the individual “is without fault and recovery would 

be against equity and good conscience.” 

Although Mr. Burton argues that he would not have 

been compelled to earn more than the statutory threshold 

amount if OPM had not improperly continued to reduce 

his disability annuity after his social security benefits had 

been terminated, that argument provides no ground for 

overriding the statutory prohibition on disability benefits 

to persons who earn more than the statutory threshold 

amount. Because Mr. Burton was not entitled to payment 

of a disability annuity during the period that his earnings 

exceeded the statutory earnings limitation, the Board 

correctly denied his request for a monetary award.1 

No costs.

AFFIRMED

1 Before the Board, Mr. Burton also sought reinstatement of his Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance 

(“FEGLI”) policy. Pursuant to statute, OPM ceased 

making premium payments on that policy when Mr. 

Burton’s disability annuity payments ceased. The administrative judge ruled that the Board lacked jurisdiction 

over Mr. Burton’s FEGLI claim. Mr. Burton did not 

challenge the administrative judge’s jurisdictional ruling 

before the full Board, nor does it appear that he has 

sought review of that decision in this court. In any event, 

we agree with the administrative judge that, with certain 

exceptions not applicable here, the Board does not have 

jurisdiction over FEGLI claims. See 5 U.S.C. § 8715.

 

Case: 15-3222 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/11/2016