Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01491/USCOURTS-ca13-24-01491-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Eric Bearden
Petitioner
Office of Personnel Management
Respondent

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

GEORGE BEARDEN,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________

2024-1491

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-844E-21-0215-I-2.

______________________

Decided: January 13, 2025

______________________

GEORGE ERIC BEARDEN, Laurel, MD, pro se. 

 STEPHANIE FLEMING, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY, LOREN MISHA 

PREHEIM. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 24-1491 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 01/13/2025
2 BEARDEN v. OPM

PER CURIAM.

George E. Bearden has petitioned for review of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) final order 

denying his petition for review and affirming the 

administrative judge’s (“AJ”) February 28, 2022 initial 

decision, which had affirmed the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (“OPM”) reconsideration decision denying 

Mr. Bearden’s application for disability retirement. 

Bearden v. OPM, No. DC-844E-21-0215-I-2, 2023 WL 

8672542 (M.S.P.B. Dec. 14, 2023) (“Decision”). For the 

following reasons, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Bearden served as a Supervisory Operations 

Support Specialist (“SOSS”) with the Department of 

Homeland Security (“agency”). On March 30, 2018, Mr. 

Bearden suffered a heart attack and participated in an 

initial period of cardiac rehabilitation until August 2018,

at which time he was cleared to return to work with some 

restrictions. S.A. 12.1 Mr. Bearden continued to receive 

outpatient treatment and evaluation through the summer 

of 2019. On February 26, 2019, Mr. Bearden was removed 

from his SOSS position due to misconduct. 

Mr. Bearden later received a 90% service-connected 

disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs;

and on January 30, 2020, he applied for disability 

retirement benefits. OPM denied Mr. Bearden’s 

application for disability retirement benefits in its initial 

decision and in its January 11, 2021 reconsideration 

decision. Mr. Bearden appealed to the MSPB, and the AJ 

affirmed the agency’s reconsideration decision. The AJ’s 

initial decision became final on December 14, 2023.

1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix 

included with the government’s informal brief.

Case: 24-1491 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 01/13/2025
BEARDEN v. OPM 3

Mr. Bearden timely petitioned for review.

DISCUSSION

Ordinarily, in review of MSPB final decisions, we are 

required to affirm the decision unless “any agency action, 

findings, or conclusions [are] found 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). In a review of an MSPB decision arising out of 

an OPM disability determination, however, our review is 

limited further. Such a review is limited to determine only 

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.” Reilly v. OPM, 571 

F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Lindahl v. OPM, 

470 U.S. 768, 780–81 (1985) (cleaned up)); see also 5 U.S.C. 

§ 8347(c). As we explained in Reilly, we have jurisdiction 

to review “claims of serious legal error in the course of the 

proceedings” but not “issues related to evidentiary 

sufficiency or to minor legal errors.” 571 F.3d at 1377–78.

Mr. Bearden’s arguments here relate only to “issues 

related to evidentiary sufficiency or to minor legal errors,”

id., and thus we have no jurisdiction. For example, 

Mr. Bearden argues that the AJ “did not take total 

consideration” of his medical conditions and limitations

and that he is entitled to retirement benefits based on 

these limitations. Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2. Mr. Bearden

submits statements provided by his independent medical 

examiner and presents numerous medical conditions that

allegedly “prevent[ed] him from performing the essential 

functions of his position” as an SOSS. Pet’r’s Informal 

Br. 20–25.

In Reilly, we concluded that these types of 

arguments—directed to the failure to consider evidence or 

Case: 24-1491 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 01/13/2025
4 BEARDEN v. OPM

give proper weight to certain evidence—are beyond the 

scope of our review. 571 F.3d at 1377–78. We therefore 

have no jurisdiction over Mr. Bearden’s petition. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Mr. Bearden’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, the

petition for review of the final decision of the MSPB is 

dismissed.

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 24-1491 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 01/13/2025