Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02161/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02161-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy Lamb
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TIMOTHY LAMB,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2161

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-844E-15-0348-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: March 7, 2017

______________________ 

RONALD PAUL ACKERMAN, Law Offices of Ronald P. 

Ackerman, Culver City, CA, for petitioner.

TARA K. HOGAN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., ALLISON KIDD-MILLER;

PAUL ST. HILLAIRE, Office of Personnel Management, 

Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2017
2 LAMB v. OPM

Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Timothy Lamb (“Lamb”) appeals the final order of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (“the Board”) affirming 

the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) decision 

denying his application for disability retirement under 

the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”). 

Lamb v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 123 M.S.P.R. 401 (2016). 

Because the Board’s decision contains no legal error and 

because we lack jurisdiction to review OPM’s factual 

findings relating to disability, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Lamb served as a Special Agent (“SA”) for the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in Portland, Oregon, for 

several years. Lamb v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. SF844E-15-0348-I-1, 2015 WL 5184688, at *2 (M.S.P.B. 

Sept. 3, 2015) (“Initial Decision”). The FBI proposed to 

remove Lamb from his SA position in February 2013 for

unprofessional off-duty conduct and lack of candor.1 Id.

at *2–3. After an investigation, the FBI removed Lamb 

from his position on August 23, 2013. Id. at *4. 

 

1 The unprofessional off-duty conduct and lack of 

candor charges against Lamb stemmed from a series of 

incidents in which Lamb visited his former spouse’s 

residence to pick up his children, after local police had 

instructed Lamb that he would be arrested for trespass 

should he visit that residence. Lamb was arrested for 

trespass. Although not addressed in the notice of proposed removal, Lamb also admitted to utilizing the services of prostitutes during overseas vacations, a violation 

of the FBI code of conduct. Initial Decision, 2015 WL 

5184688, at *2–4. 

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2017
LAMB v. OPM 3

Lamb sought psychological counseling in April 2013 

after he learned that the FBI had proposed dismissing 

him. Id. at *3. At about this same time, Lamb’s internist 

recommended that Lamb not return to duty because he 

exhibited symptoms of anxiety, depression, and a sleep 

disorder. Id. at *4. Lamb continued to receive mental 

health counseling for almost two years thereafter, during 

which time his conditions worsened. Id. at *3. Lamb also 

underwent a fitness for duty examination in April 2013, 

after which the physician responsible for conducting 

Lamb’s fitness for duty examination concluded he was 

physically fit for duty. Id. at *4. The physician noted in 

the examination report that Lamb had a mild hearing 

deficit at higher frequencies in his left ear, but concluded 

that this hearing deficit did not affect Lamb’s ability to 

perform SA duties. Id.

In June 2014, Lamb filed an SF-3107 Application for 

Immediate Retirement under FERS. Id. Lamb’s Statement of Disability declared that he suffered from depression, anxiety, panic disorder, sleep disorders, tinnitus, 

and hearing loss. These conditions, according to Lamb, 

prevented him from performing SA duties. J.A. 56. 

OPM denied Lamb’s application for FERS disability 

retirement in September 2014. Initial Decision, 2015 WL 

5184688, at *5. OPM concluded that Lamb failed to 

establish that he had a medical condition severe enough 

to be disabling while employed in a FERS position. Lamb 

requested reconsideration of OPM’s initial decision and 

submitted supplemental medical documentation along 

with other relevant documents in support of his request. 

Included in these supplemental filings were medical 

statements indicating that Lamb had sought and received 

counseling services relating to his divorce between April 

2010 and May 2013. Id. at *3. Lamb explained that he 

did not disclose that counseling or any symptoms of 

depression relating to his job because he feared doing so 

might impact his job. Id. at *4. OPM sustained its initial 

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/07/2017
4 LAMB v. OPM

decision and concluded that Lamb’s supplemental medical 

documentation did not adequately demonstrate that 

Lamb had a disabling medical condition before he was 

removed from federal service. 

Lamb appealed this decision to the Board. After a 

telephonic hearing and further supplementation of the 

record, the administrative judge (“AJ”) determined that 

Lamb had not established, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that he was disabled because of a medical 

condition resulting in a deficiency in his performance, 

conduct, or attendance as an SA. Id. at *6–7. The AJ 

noted that Lamb’s counselor, psychologist, and physician 

all had concluded Lamb was medically unable to perform 

his duties due to the conditions Lamb alleged were disabling. Id at *6. But the AJ found that the medical evidence on the record indicated Lamb was able to control 

his depression, anxiety, and sleeping issues such that he 

was rendering useful and efficient service in his SA 

position prior to his removal. Id. In other words, the AJ 

found that any disabling symptoms were prompted by the 

removal and circumstances relating thereto, and did not 

predate it. The AJ also found that Lamb’s audiological 

testing results indicated that Lamb only had mild to 

moderate hearing loss in one ear that should not have 

limited or disqualified Lamb from rendering useful and 

efficient service in his SA position. Id. The AJ noted 

that, in a June 2013 statement, Lamb indicated he was 

prepared to return to his SA duties and requested a 

transfer to a different division. Id. The AJ further found 

that, at the time that the FBI issued the notice of proposed removal, Lamb was a productive SA, “performing at 

a satisfactory or higher level.” Id. The AJ also did not 

find any indication that Lamb’s job attendance was unacceptable, or that Lamb’s workplace conduct was unsatisfactory. Id. at *7. On this point, the AJ noted that it was 

Lamb’s off-duty conduct that prompted his removal, not 

any on the job performance failures. Id. 

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/07/2017
LAMB v. OPM 5

Lamb filed a petition for review of the AJ’s initial decision. Because the two Board members assigned to the 

case could not agree on the disposition of Lamb’s petition, 

the AJ’s initial decision became a non-precedential final 

decision under 5 C.F.R. § 1200.3(b).2 Lamb v. Office of 

Pers. Mgmt., 123 M.S.P.R. 401 (2016). Lamb timely 

appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision 

of the Board is limited. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless 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 Fields v. 

Dep’t of Justice, 452 F.3d 1297, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support” the 

Board’s conclusion. Consol. Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor 

Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). 

In an appeal from a denial of disability retirement 

benefits under FERS, our jurisdiction is further limited. 

Under 5 U.S.C. § 8461(d), we cannot review “the factual 

underpinnings of physical disability determinations, but 

may address whether there has been a substantial departure from important procedural rights, a misconstruction 

 

2 5 C.F.R. § 1200.3(b) reads: “When due to a vacancy, recusal or other reasons, the Board members are 

unable to decide any case by majority vote, the decision, 

recommendation or order under review shall be deemed 

the final decision or order of the Board. The Chairman of 

the Board may direct the issuance of an order consistent 

with this paragraph.”

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/07/2017
6 LAMB v. OPM

of the governing legislation, or some like error ‘going to 

the heart of the administrative determination.’” Anthony 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 58 F.3d 620, 628 (Fed. Cir. 1995) 

(quoting Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 

791 (1985)); see also Vanieken-Ryals v. Office of Pers. 

Mgmt., 508 F.3d 1034, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[W]e may 

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

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

An applicant for FERS disability retirement must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the 

applicant completed at least 18 months of creditable 

civilian service; (2) while employed in a FERS position, 

the applicant became disabled because of a medical condition, resulting in deficient performance, conduct, or attendance, or if there is no such deficiency, the condition is 

incompatible with either useful and efficient service or 

retention in the position; (3) the disabling medical condition is expected to continue for at least one year from the 

date of the application for disability retirement; 

(4) accommodation of the disabling medical condition in 

the position held is unreasonable; and (5) the applicant 

has not declined an offer of reassignment to a vacant 

position. See 5 U.S.C. § 8451(a); 5 C.F.R. § 844.103(a).

An applicant for disability retirement bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that he or 

she had a disability while employed in a position subject 

to FERS. 5 C.F.R. §§ 844.103(a)(2), 1201.56(b)(2)(ii). 

OPM determined here that Lamb failed to establish a 

disabling medical condition pursuant to FERS, based on 

specific factual findings regarding the onset and performance impact of any medical symptoms or conditions. 

After considering all relevant evidence on the record, 

including Lamb’s supplemental materials, the Board 

affirmed OPM’s factual determination. Although we may 

have reached a different conclusion in this case had we 

been the fact-finding body, we cannot review denials of 

disability for substantial evidence. 

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/07/2017
LAMB v. OPM 7

Lamb has further failed to establish any procedural, 

legal, or other fundamental error in the administrative 

proceeding. See Lindahl, 470 U.S. at 791; Anthony, 58 

F.3d at 626. There is no indication that the AJ failed to 

examine the supplemental evidence Lamb submitted. In 

fact, the Board’s initial decision references Lamb’s supplementation of the record after OPM’s reconsideration 

decision. Initial Decision, 2015 WL 5184688, at *5–6. 

Lamb’s arguments as to evidentiary sufficiency and 

evidentiary weight address the factual findings in this 

case, not legal error. To the extent Lamb challenges the 

Board’s evaluation of the totality of the evidence, we do 

not have jurisdiction to review these findings. See Davis 

v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 F.3d 1059, 1060–61 (Fed. Cir. 

2006) (citation omitted) (explaining that arguments 

relating to whether the Board adequately considered the 

totality of the evidence “are, in reality, challenges to the 

factual underpinnings of the Board’s determination” that 

we cannot review under Lindahl).

Lamb’s reliance on Marucci v. Office of Personnel 

Management, 89 M.S.P.R. 442 (2001) is unpersuasive. In 

Marucci, the Board explained that “the cause of the 

condition is not relevant in determining whether an 

employee is eligible for disability retirement. Instead, the 

relevant inquiry focuses on whether the condition prevents the employee from performing the duties necessary 

for the job” and whether it did so while he was still employed in that position. Id. at 445. Here, the AJ focused 

the analysis of Lamb’s claim on the progress of his condition as evidenced by the record, not on Lamb’s misconduct: “While the appellant was removed for misconduct . . 

. there is nothing in the record showing that the appellant’s attendance was unacceptable, nor that his conduct 

at the workplace was unsatisfactory.” Initial Decision, 

2015 WL 5184688, at *7. The AJ concluded that Lamb 

could perform his SA duties. Id. That factual finding is 

not subject to our review. See Anthony, 58 F.3d at 628.

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/07/2017
8 LAMB v. OPM

We have considered Lamb’s remaining arguments and 

conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing 

reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2161 Document: 37-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/07/2017