Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02534/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02534-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcia Mocny
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MARCIA MOCNY,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2534

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-831E-15-0295-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: December 14, 2016 

______________________ 

MARCIA MOCNY, Lisle, IL, pro se.

AGATHA KOPROWSKI, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

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

F. HOCKEY, JR. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-2534 Document: 14-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2016
2 MOCNY v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Marcia Mocny appeals a final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“board”) affirming a decision 

by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) to deny 

her application for a Civil Service Retirement System 

(“CSRS”) disability retirement annuity. See Mocny v. 

OPM, 123 M.S.P.R. 446 (2016) (“Board Decision”). For 

the reasons discussed below, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mocny worked as a Sales, Service and Distribution 

Associate with the United States Postal Service (“Postal 

Service”) in Westmont, Illinois. In February 2014, she 

applied for disability retirement benefits, asserting that 

she suffered from a variety of conditions, including kidney 

disease, thyroid disease, gout, insomnia, depression, and 

plantar fasciitis. On August 13, 2014, after reaching the 

age of fifty-five, Mocny retired from the federal service. 

OPM denied Mocny’s application for disability retirement benefits on October 20, 2014. OPM concluded that 

the evidence submitted with Mocny’s application did “not 

establish medical conditions of the severity to prevent 

[her] from performing critical and essential elements of 

[her] position, or warrant [her] exclusion from the workplace altogether.” Mocny subsequently sought reconsideration, but on February 12, 2015, OPM again denied her 

application for disability retirement benefits. 

Mocny then appealed to the board. On July 23, 2015, 

an administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming OPM’s decision to deny Mocny’s application for a 

disability retirement annuity. The administrative judge 

explained that to qualify for a CSRS disability retirement 

annuity, Mocny was required to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) because of a disease or 

injury she was unable “to render useful and efficient 

Case: 16-2534 Document: 14-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2016
MOCNY v. OPM 3

service in her position as a Sales, Service and Distribution 

Associate”; and (2) she was “not qualified for reassignment to a vacant position with [the Postal Service] at the 

same grade or level in which she would be able to render 

such service.” See 5 U.S.C. § 8337(a). The administrative 

judge acknowledged that Mocny’s medical records demonstrated that she suffered from a number of “serious medical conditions.” The judge concluded, however, that 

Mocny had failed to establish that those medical conditions were “incompatible with useful and efficient service 

or retention in the position of Sales, Service and Distribution Associate for the United States Postal Service.” 

Specifically, the administrative judge determined that 

Mocny failed to identify the physical requirements of her 

position or explain how her medical conditions impaired 

her ability to perform her duties. 

Mocny subsequently petitioned for review of the administrative judge’s decision. In June 2016, the board, in 

a split-vote order, adopted the administrative judge’s 

initial decision as the final decision of the board. Board 

Decision, 123 M.S.P.R. at 446; see 5 C.F.R. § 1200.3. 

Mocny then filed a timely appeal to this court.

DISCUSSION

Our review of a decision of the board is circumscribed

by statute. We can set such a decision aside only if it is: 

“(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without 

procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having 

been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see Marino v. OPM, 243 F.3d 

1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This court’s authority to 

review a disability retirement determination is even more 

limited. See Lindahl v. OPM, 470 U.S. 768, 791 (1985); 

Reilly v. OPM, 571 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The 

Civil Service Retirement Act specifically provides that:

Case: 16-2534 Document: 14-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2016
4 MOCNY v. OPM

[OPM] shall determine questions of disability and 

dependency arising under this subchapter. Except to the extent provided under subsection (d) of 

this section . . . the decisions of [OPM] concerning 

these matters are final and conclusive and are not 

subject to review. 

5 U.S.C. § 8347(c) (emphasis added).

This provision imposes significant restrictions on judicial review. See Lindahl, 470 U.S. at 780–91. It prohibits this court from reviewing the “factual underpinnings” 

of a decision to deny an application for a disability retirement annuity. Id. at 791. Instead, we are vested with 

authority only “to determine whether there has been a 

substantial departure from important procedural rights, a 

misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like 

error going to the heart of the administrative determination.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Vanieken–Ryals v. OPM, 508 F.3d 1034, 

1038 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining that this court “may 

only address the critical legal errors, if any, committed by 

the [board] in reviewing OPM’s decision”).

On appeal, Mocny asserts that the board should have 

“taken [into] account” letters from three doctors which, 

she alleges, demonstrate that she was “disable[d] to 

work.” The record shows, however, that Mocny was 

represented by counsel when she appeared before the 

board, and that the administrative judge considered and 

evaluated the relevant evidence she presented. The 

administrative judge determined, however, that while the 

evidence of record showed that Mocny “suffer[ed] from a 

multitude of medical conditions,” it was insufficient to 

demonstrate that those “conditions, individually or in 

combination, [were] incompatible with rendering useful 

and efficient service in her” position as a Sales, Service 

and Distribution Associate. In other words, the administrative judge concluded that the evidence presented did 

Case: 16-2534 Document: 14-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/14/2016
MOCNY v. OPM 5

not establish that Mocny’s physical limitations prevented 

her from performing the essential duties of her position. 

We are without authority to revisit the board’s factual 

determinations on physical disability issues or to reweigh 

the medical evidence it evaluated. See Reilly, 571 F.3d at 

1379 (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to 

review whether the board properly evaluated “particular 

items of evidence”); Vanieken–Ryals, 508 F.3d at 1040 

(“Giving little weight to specific evidence because of its 

individual failings, such as the lack of qualifications of the 

author of a particular medical report, is a factual analysis 

over which we have no jurisdiction to review.”); Davis v. 

OPM, 470 F.3d 1059, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our review 

of a Board decision that affirms OPM’s denial of a disability retirement application is extremely limited. We 

cannot review the factual underpinnings of a disability 

determination.”). 

Mocny identifies no “critical legal error[],” Vanieken–

Ryals, 508 F.3d at 1038, committed by the board in reviewing OPM’s determination to deny her application for 

a disability retirement annuity. See Bracey v. OPM, 236 

F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that this 

court can review whether the statutes and regulations 

related to disability retirement benefits have been properly construed). Nor does she point to any “substantial 

departure from important procedural rights,” Lindahl, 

470 U.S. at 791 (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted), in the board’s proceedings. Because Mocny 

challenges only the factual underpinnings of the decision 

to deny her application for a CSRS disability retirement 

annuity, we are barred, under 5 U.S.C. § 8347(c), from 

entertaining her appeal.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Mocny’s appeal of the final decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board is dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction.

Case: 16-2534 Document: 14-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/14/2016
6 MOCNY v. OPM

COSTS

No costs.

DISMISSED

Case: 16-2534 Document: 14-2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/14/2016