Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03147/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03147-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Beverly D. Trotter-Low
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BEVERLY D. TROTTER-LOW,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3147

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-0845-15-0145-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: November 6, 2015 

______________________ 

BEVERLY D. TROTTER-LOW, Buda, TX, pro se.

SARA B. REARDEN, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRYAN G. POLISUK. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3147 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/06/2015
2 TROTTER-LOW v. MSPB

PER CURIAM

Beverly Trotter-Low appeals from a Merit Systems 

Protection Board (“Board”) decision dismissing her appeal 

as untimely filed. Because the Board’s dismissal is not 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with law, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Ms. Trotter-Low receives annuity benefits under the 

Federal Employees Retirement System. Because the 

Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) had not adjusted her annuity based on her receipt of a Social Security 

Disability Insurance Benefit, it calculated that it overpaid 

her $29,320 for the period from July 1, 2010 to April 30, 

2014. It informed Ms. Trotter-Low that it intended to 

collect this overpayment by deducting monthly installments from her annuity. Ms. Trotter-Low timely requested reconsideration of the OPM’s decision. 

On September 30, 2014, the OPM sent Ms. TrotterLow a letter denying her request for reconsideration. The 

OPM rejected Ms. Trotter-Low’s offer to repay a lesser 

amount, finding it unreasonable. The OPM did conclude

that the original repayment schedule would cause Ms. 

Trotter-Low financial hardship and set a new repayment 

schedule to begin January 1, 2015 absent a timely filed 

appeal with the Board. The letter included a paragraph 

titled “Appeal Rights,” which explained that Ms. TrotterLow must file any Board appeal “within 30 calendar days 

from the date of this letter, or from receipt of this letter, 

whichever is later.” Resp’t App. (“R.A.”) at 46. As evidenced by a Certified Mail tracking receipt, Ms. TrotterLow received the OPM letter on October 4, 2014. Thus, 

the deadline for Ms. Trotter-Low to file an appeal was 

November 3, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Board received an appeal 

from Ms. Trotter-Low. While Ms. Trotter-Low signed the 

Case: 15-3147 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/06/2015
TROTTER-LOW v. MSPB 3

appeal form on October 31, 2014, the envelope in which it 

was mailed is postmarked December 2, 2014. In response, the Board mailed Ms. Trotter-Low an Order on 

December 24, 2014, explaining that there was a question 

regarding whether her appeal was untimely and should 

be dismissed. The Order stated that if Ms. Trotter-Low 

did not file her appeal on time she should “file evidence 

and/or argument showing that good cause exists for the 

delay in filing” and explained what constitutes “good 

cause.” R.A. at 13. Ms. Trotter-Low did not respond to 

this Order. On February 26, 2015, the Board dismissed 

Ms. Trotter-Low’s appeal as untimely filed. Ms. TrotterLow timely appealed to this Court. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Whether the regulatory time limit for filing an appeal 

to the Board should be waived based on a showing of good 

cause is committed to the Board’s discretion. Mendoza v. 

Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 

1992) (en banc). “[W]e will disturb the grant or denial of 

such a waiver only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the 

law.” Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)). 

On appeal, Ms. Trotter-Low only argues the merits of 

her case—that the four years it took the OPM to process 

her paperwork was unreasonable and caused her severe 

financial and personal hardship. She does not address 

whether there was good cause for her delay in filing her 

Board appeal. As the Board explained in its December 24, 

2014 Order, the burden is on Ms. Trotter-Low to come 

forward with evidence or argument explaining that good 

cause existed for her untimely filing. Ms. Trotter-Low did 

not respond to the Board’s Order. Under the facts presented, we cannot say the Board abused its discretion in 

dismissing her appeal as untimely filed. Id. at 653–64 

(holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by 

Case: 15-3147 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/06/2015
4 TROTTER-LOW v. MSPB

dismissing an untimely appeal where the appellant failed 

to respond to a Board order to show cause). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Board 

is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 15-3147 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/06/2015