Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02490/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02490-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
Major Morrison
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MAJOR MORRISON,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2490

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-15-0043-C-1.

______________________ 

Decided: January 13, 2017

______________________ 

MAJOR MORRISON, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

PETER ANTHONY GWYNNE, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR.,

REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

Case: 16-2490 Document: 19-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2017
2 MORRISON v. DVA

PER CURIAM. 

Dr. Major Morrison petitions for review of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board’s (“Board”) denial of his petition 

for enforcement of a settlement agreement he entered 

with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs 

(“VA”). Because substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s findings and we discern no legal error, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Dr. Morrison served in the United States Marine 

Corps from 1979–1998. He subsequently worked as a 

Boiler Plant Operator at the VA’s New York Harbor 

Healthcare System. A6.1 In 2014, the VA notified 

Dr. Morrison of its decision to remove him from his position of Boiler Plant Operator. Id. Dr. Morrison appealed 

that decision to the Board on November 25, 2014. Id. On 

March 26, 2015, he entered into a settlement agreement 

with the VA (“Settlement Agreement”). 

In relevant part, the Settlement Agreement provides: 

2. VA hereby:

a) agrees to cancel the December 5, 2014 removal 

of the appellant from his position as a WG-10 

Boiler Plant Operator.

b) agrees to approve, as of the date of this agreement, the appellant’s request to be reassigned to a 

WG-5 Motor Vehicle Operator Position.

c) agrees to restore the appellant to status quo 

ante with no break in service. Appellant is entitled to all benefits and privileges of employment 

that he would have received had he not been removed effective December 5, 2014 including but 

 

1 “A__” refers to the appendix to the VA’s informal 

brief.

Case: 16-2490 Document: 19-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2017
MORRISON v. DVA 3

not limited to retroactive pay, annual leave, sick 

leave, seniority, pension rights and medical and 

health benefits.

d) agrees to pay the appellant, by check or 

through electronic funds transfer, for the appropriate amount of backpay, with interest, and to 

adjust benefits with appropriate credits and deductions in accordance with the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations within sixty 

calendar days of the date of this agreement.

e) agrees to pay the appellant, by check or through 

electronic funds transfer, $7,000 in compensatory 

damages within sixty calendar days of the date of 

this agreement.

A32. Based on the Settlement Agreement, the Board 

dismissed Dr. Morrison’s appeal on April 8, 2015. A6–A8. 

Dr. Morrison later filed a petition for enforcement, arguing that the VA had not followed the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. See A17–A21. Because it was 

unclear to the Board what portions of the Settlement 

Agreement the VA allegedly breached, it issued an order 

to show cause. A20; A38. Dr. Morrison responded “that 

he wished to be restored to his position of Boiler Plant 

Operator and he was only paid $7,000 rather than 

$14,000.” A20. On June 29, 2016, the Board denied

Dr. Morrison’s petition after finding that the VA had not 

breached any of the Settlement Agreement’s terms. A21.

The Board’s decision became final on August 3, 2016. Id.

JURISDICTION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9), we have jurisdiction “of an appeal from a final order or final decision of 

the Merit Systems Protection Board, pursuant to sections 

7703(b)(1) and 7703(d) of title 5.” But appeals from a 

final Board decision “shall be filed within 60 days after 

Case: 16-2490 Document: 19-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2017
4 MORRISON v. DVA

the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the 

Board.” Id. § 7703(b)(1)(A).

The Board’s initial decision included a section entitled, 

“NOTICE TO APPELLANT,” where it explained that 

“[t]his final decision will become final on August 3, 2016.” 

A21. The initial decision also included a section entitled, 

“NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR 

FUTURE REVIEW RIGHTS.” A25. There, it informed 

Dr. Morrison that he had a right to file an appeal with 

this court. But it cautioned that “[t]he court must receive 

your request for review no later than 60 calendar days 

after the date this initial decision becomes final.” Id. 

Because the Board’s initial decision became final on 

August 3, 2016, Dr. Morrison was required to file his 

appeal by October 2, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(a). 

On August 9, 2016, we received various documents from 

Dr. Morrison, which we construed as his petition for 

review. We then requested that Dr. Morrison complete an 

informal brief, which we received on October 11, 2016. 

Because we construed Dr. Morrison’s August 3 filing as 

his petition for review, his appeal is timely, and we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

MERITS

Dr. Morrison bears the burden of establishing that the 

Board erred. See Jones v. Dep’t of Health & Human 

Servs., 834 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We affirm 

the Board’s decision unless we find it to be:

(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); accord Cleaton v. Dep’t of Justice, 839 

F.3d 1126, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Substantial evidence is 

Case: 16-2490 Document: 19-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2017
MORRISON v. DVA 5

more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but less than the 

weight of the evidence.” Jones, 834 F.3d at 1366 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Dr. Morrison’s informal brief appears to argue that the 

Board failed to consider a letter he sent to the Board on

July 5, 2016 alleging that his removal was based on race. 

Pet’r’s Inf. Br. 1; see also A40–A41. Whatever the dispute 

over Dr. Morrison’s removal, the record indicates that the 

parties entered into the Settlement Agreement on March 

26, 2015 that settled all issues of dispute between the 

parties. A31–A32. The merits of the underlying dispute 

prior to the Settlement Agreement, therefore, are not 

before us.

Dr. Morrison also appears to complain that the Board 

failed to provide a hearing. Given the record before the 

Board, we discern no abuse of discretion in the failure to 

schedule a hearing in the enforcement proceeding. See 

Knight v. Dep’t of Treasury, 2010 M.S.P.B. 80 ¶ 16 (2010); 

5 C.F.R. § 1201.183(a)(3) (“The judge may convene a 

hearing if one is necessary to resolve matters at issue.”)

(emphasis added). 

Next, Dr. Morrison argues that the Board failed to 

consider the fact that he “was not fully granted 2 year 

ext[ension] of pay and didn’t receive [the] total [of] 

[$]14,000.” Pet’r’s Inf. Br. 1. The Board found that the 

Settlement Agreement “did not provide for 

[Dr. Morrison’s] reinstatement into the position of Boiler 

Plant Operator or, a payment in the amount of $14,000.” 

A20. We agree. The Settlement Agreement, which “constitutes the entire agreement” and excludes “other terms,” 

does not provide for any two-year extension of pay. A32. 

And it provides for the payment of $7,000, not $14,000. 

Id. We therefore find that the Board did not fail to consider any relevant facts and properly construed the Settlement Agreement.

Case: 16-2490 Document: 19-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/13/2017
6 MORRISON v. DVA

Dr. Morrison seems to argue that he was forced to sign 

the Settlement Agreement under protest. See A41; ECF 

No. 10, at 11. However, both Dr. Morrison and his representative signed the Settlement Agreement, which states 

that it “has been entered into freely and voluntarily.” 

A32. Given the Settlement Agreement’s language and 

Dr. Morrison’s failure to present any evidence of duress, 

we agree with the Board’s determination that 

Dr. Morrison “voluntarily entered into” the Settlement 

Agreement. A7. 

Finally, Dr. Morrison accuses the Board of being motivated to close the case quickly. However, he cites no 

evidence in support, and we find just the opposite. The 

Board prolonged proceedings by ordering Dr. Morrison to 

state which particular terms of the Settlement Agreement 

he believed the VA violated. A38. Only after receiving 

Dr. Morrison’s additional submissions did the Board 

determine that the VA did not violate the Settlement 

Agreement. Thus, the Board carefully considered the 

alleged violations without rushing to a conclusion.

CONCLUSION

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings, 

and it properly interpreted the Settlement Agreement 

between Dr. Morrison and the VA. We therefore affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2490 Document: 19-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/13/2017