Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03158/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03158-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cambra L. Lucas
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CAMBRA L. LUCAS,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2014-3158

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0845-13-0413-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 5, 2015 

______________________ 

CAMBRA L. LUCAS, Ripon, CA, pro se.

ERIC LAUFGRABEN, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., DEBORAH A.

BYNUM. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, PLAGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2015
2 LUCAS v. OPM

PER CURIAM. 

Cambria Lucas appeals from the final order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming that 

she was not entitled to a waiver of her repayment 

obligation arising out of overpayment of post-retirement 

annuity benefits. Because the Board failed to consider 

new and material evidence in denying Lucas’ petition, we 

vacate and remand for limited further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Lucas’ Retirement And Disability Benefits

Lucas was employed by the Federal Government

between 1985 and 2007. In late 2006, Lucas applied for 

disability retirement benefits under the Federal 

Employees Retirement System (FERS) and for disability 

benefits through the Social Security Administration 

(SSA). FERS benefits take the form of a monthly annuity 

payment. The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), 

the agency that administers FERS annuity benefits, 

requires applicants to notify OPM as soon as they are 

awarded SSA benefits in order to reduce the annuity by 

the entire SSA benefit amount for the first 12 months and 

by a smaller amount thereafter. 

On March 26, 2007, OPM sent Lucas a letter notifying 

her that her application for FERS disability benefits had 

been approved. Resp’t’s App. 95. FERS annuity benefits 

are usually approved before SSA benefits and are reduced 

after the annuitant receives SSA benefits. OPM’s letter 

explained that the initial payments made by OPM would 

be “interim payments” until OPM was able to finally 

calculate the precise amount of her benefits once the SSA 

benefit amount was determined. The letter advised Lucas 

that the interim payment was “usually about 80 percent 

of the amount of your actual annuity payment.” Id. The 

letter also informed Lucas that she was required to apply 

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2015
LUCAS v. OPM 3

for SSA benefits and to immediately inform OPM of her 

SSA approval. Id.

On March 27, 2007, Lucas was approved for SSA 

benefits in the amount of $1,755.00 per month. Id. at 93. 

Lucas claims that she notified OPM that she had been 

approved for SSA benefits but acknowledges she has no 

proof of that notification. See Pet’r’s App. 27.

On April 19, 2007, OPM sent Lucas a statement that 

set out the amount of her interim benefits, less Federal 

Income Tax, for the period of February 3, 2007 through 

March 30, 2007. Below the statement of benefits, 

boilerplate language explained that the government was 

paying interim benefits “until we [OPM] can determine 

the exact amount to which you are entitled” once Lucas’ 

SSA benefits were determined. Resp’t’s App. 89. The 

boilerplate explained that interim payments were being 

made “at a rate that should be less than [Lucas’] actual 

earned annuity.” Id. OPM used the lower rate so as “to 

avoid an overpayment which would have to be received 

from [Lucas’] future annuity payments.” Id. In the event 

of overpayment, Lucas would be notified and have an 

opportunity to respond before OPM would start 

“withhold[ing] the excess from future annuity payments.” 

Id. The letter also informed Lucas that her health 

benefits and life insurance coverage would continue 

without interruption, but that those deductions would not 

be itemized in the interim payment statements. Id. at 90. 

B. Overpayment Of Benefits

Although Lucas claims to have notified OPM of her 

approval for SSA benefits, OPM did not reduce Lucas’ 

annuity benefits. As such, Lucas continued to receive 

benefits at the same rate as her interim award amount for 

over three years. Id. at 84. During that time, Lucas 

repeatedly contacted OPM to discuss the amount of her 

annuity benefits, concerned that she was not receiving the 

full amount to which she was entitled. Pet’r’s App. 60.

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/05/2015
4 LUCAS v. OPM

After reviewing Lucas’ file in 2010, the government 

determined that Lucas was being overpaid. Because the 

government had not deducted the SSA amount or the 

premiums for Lucas’ health benefits and life insurance 

from her annuity benefits, Lucas had received an excess of 

$89,675. Resp’t’s App. 85. On July 20, 2010, the 

government sent Lucas a notice of amount due because of 

overpayment. Id. In the notice, the government proposed 

that Lucas repay the overpayments by making 303 

monthly payments of slightly less than $300. Id. The 

notice informed Lucas that she could accept the 

government’s offer or counter with a lesser compromise 

amount. Id. at 84. 

C. Procedural History

Lucas rejected the government’s offer and requested 

that OPM reconsider its determination of the amount of 

excess payments. She also sought waiver for 

overpayment on the basis she was not at fault, that she 

detrimentally relied on the agency’s overpayment, and 

that recovery would be unconscionable under the 

circumstances. In April 2013, OPM issued a decision 

affirming the overpayment, though adjusting the amount 

to $89,636. Id. at 75. Regarding Lucas’ waiver argument, 

OPM determined that, while Lucas was not at fault for 

the overpayment, she had not established either that she 

detrimentally relied on the overpayment or that recovery 

would be unconscionable. Id. at 77. Thus, OPM denied 

Lucas’ request for waiver.

Lucas appealed to the Board. The administrative 

judge held a hearing in the case on June 14, 2013, and 

closed the record at the end of the hearing. Id. at 35. The 

administrative judge issued an initial decision affirming 

both that OPM had established the correct amount of 

overpayment, id., and that Lucas had not detrimentally 

relied on OPM’s overpayment, id. at 42. Regarding 

unconscionability, the administrative judge found that 

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/05/2015
LUCAS v. OPM 5

Lucas presented no evidence that OPM had learned that 

Lucas was receiving SSA benefits, for instance through its 

routine checks of the SSA’s computer systems, “until 

shortly before it finalized its calculations” in 2010. Id. at 

42. Though the administrative judge acknowledged that 

it was “troubling that it took OPM so long to find and 

correct any of the mistakes with [Lucas’] annuity,” the 

judge found OPM’s conduct did not rise to the level of 

unconscionability. Id. at 43.

On August 1, 2013, Lucas filed a petition for review of 

the Board’s initial decision. On August 26, 2013, OPM 

filed its response and attached a document that it claimed 

it had inadvertently omitted from the agency appeal file. 

Id. at 57. The document was a Social Security 

Administration printout, entitled “SSA Response Screen,”

from October 2008, indicating that Lucas was entitled to 

SSA benefits and that she had received payments in 2007. 

Id. at 58. Lucas responded, arguing that the SSA 

Response Screen document demonstrated that OPM had 

knowledge of the overpayment in 2008. 

In May 2014, the Board affirmed the initial decision 

in a final decision, finding that Lucas again did not 

present sufficient evidence to demonstrate 

unconscionability or detrimental reliance. During review 

proceedings, Lucas cited an additional SSA printout for 

an individual OPM had mistaken for Lucas, arguing the 

printout circumstantially demonstrated OPM error in 

processing her alleged notification of benefits. Resp’t’s 

App. 4. Because Lucas had not cited this discrepancy as 

evidence in any earlier proceeding, the Board held that 

the mistaken SSA printout was neither new nor material. 

Id. at 5. The Board did not reference the October 2008 

SSA Response Screen document in its opinion.

Lucas appeals the Board’s denial of her petition for 

review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9). 

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/05/2015
6 LUCAS v. OPM

II. New Material Evidence 

The Board may grant a petition for review if the 

petitioner presents new and material evidence “that, 

despite due diligence, was not available when the record 

closed.” Azarkish v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 915 F.2d 675, 

679 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d)). 

New evidence is evidence that first becomes available 

after the record closes. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). Evidence 

is material if it “is of sufficient weight to warrant an 

outcome different from that of the initial decision.” 

Wright v. U.S. Postal Serv., 183 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 

1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Lucas argues that she presented new and material 

evidence which went unconsidered by the Board. Lucas

points to the SSA Response Screen document that was not

produced by OPM until after Lucas filed her petition for 

review with the Board. Pet’r’s Br. 2–3. Lucas argues that 

OPM’s failure to turn the document over to either the 

administrative judge or to her contravened an order from 

the administrative judge. Id. at 9. That response screen

document, dated September 10, 2008, contains details 

related to Lucas’ SSA payment history in 2007. 

Specifically, it shows that Lucas received SSA payments 

on May 1, 2007 and December 1, 2007. Pet’r’s App. 26. 

Lucas contends that this document establishes that OPM 

was able to “view” the benefits she was receiving from 

SSA as early as 2008. Pet’r’s Br. 3. She argues that 

because OPM had this information in 2008 and did not 

act on it until 2010, she is entitled to waiver of the 

obligation to repay the overpayment.

OPM concedes that the Board did not consider Lucas’ 

SSA Response Screen document in its decision denying 

Lucas’ petition for review. Resp’t’s Br. 12. But because it 

was in the record when the Board issued its final decision, 

OPM argues, we must presume that the Board considered 

it and found it to not be material. Id. at 13. OPM points 

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/05/2015
LUCAS v. OPM 7

out that Lucas did not cite evidence that the Board did 

not consider Lucas’ Response Screen document. Id. The 

government contends that the Response Screen document 

does not establish that OPM discovered Lucas’ 

overpayments before July 2010, or that OPM delayed in 

responding to the overpayment after becoming aware of 

it. Id. 

We find that Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document

constitutes new and material evidence. OPM admitted 

that the document was inadvertently “omitted from the 

agency appeal file” submitted to the regional Board. 

Resp’t’s App. 31. OPM further acknowledged that “the 

administrative judge and the appellant were not made 

aware of the document.” Id. As such, the SSA Response 

Screen document was not available to Lucas until after 

she filed her petition for review, well after the 

administrative judge rendered the initial decision and the 

close of the record on June 14, 2013. 

OPM was required by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.25 to produce 

all documents contained in the agency’s record of the 

action. The government acknowledged it produced these 

documents minus Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document. 

Id. at 25. Because Lucas had no knowledge that OPM 

was in possession of this critical document, or that it even 

existed, she could not have obtained the document prior to 

the close of the record by exercising due diligence. 

Accordingly, Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document is 

new evidence. 

The SSA Response Screen document shows that Lucas 

was receiving SSA benefits in 2007. In her informal reply 

brief, filed after OPM moved to admit the document, 

Lucas contended that the document’s date, October 16, 

2008, demonstrated that OPM had notice of her receipt of 

SSA benefits in 2008. Pet’r’s App. 9. It appears that 

OPM did not respond to this argument, effectively 

conceding it to Lucas. Taken as true, Lucas’ assertion 

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/05/2015
8 LUCAS v. OPM

that OPM was on notice of her receipt of SSA benefits in 

2008 could warrant a different outcome in her case. 

In denying Lucas’ petition for review, the Board made 

no mention of the late-submitted document. Yet, the 

Board found that OPM’s expeditious adjustment of Lucas’ 

annuity was a factor weighing against a finding that 

repayment under the circumstances would be 

unconscionable.1 Resp’t’s App. 6. The Board relied on 

two cases to support its expediency finding, Spinella v. 

Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 185 (2008) 

and Taylor v. Office of Personnel Management, 87 

M.S.P.R. 214 (2000), in which long delays before 

adjustment of the annuity were not unconscionable 

because the agency acted promptly after discovering the 

overpayment. Id. If Lucas’ assertion that the Board had 

notice of her receipt of SSA benefits since 2008 is correct, 

then OPM’s adjustment of her benefits was not 

expeditious. This undermines one basis for the Board’s 

conclusion that the delay was not unconscionable. As 

such, Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document is also 

material evidence.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Lucas’ other arguments and find 

them without merit. We vacate the Board’s denial of 

Lucas’ petition for review and remand for proceedings 

limited to the Board’s consideration of whether new and 

material evidence in the form of Lucas’ SSA Response

Screen document would render recovery unconscionable 

under the circumstances.

1 The Board determines whether recovery would be 

unconscionable by evaluating the totality of the 

circumstances, including whether “OPM failed to act 

expeditiously to adjust an annuity in the face of specific 

notice.” Simpson v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 96 M.S.P.R. 52, 

61 (2004).

 

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/05/2015
LUCAS v. OPM 9

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-3158 Document: 22-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/05/2015