Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03015/USCOURTS-ca13-15-03015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Merit Systems Protection Board
Respondent
Lawrence W. Passiatore
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________ 

LAWRENCE W. PASSIATORE,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________ 

2015-3015

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. NY-0752-09-0124-I-1.

______________________ 

Decided: June 4, 2015

______________________ 

LAWRENCE W. PASSIATORE, Thornwood, NY, 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, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-3015 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/04/2015
2 PASSIATORE v. MSPB

PER CURIAM. 

DECISION

Lawrence W. Passiatore, a retired Postal Service employee, petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board dismissing his petition for 

review as untimely filed. We hold that the Board did not 

abuse its discretion in ruling that the petition was untimely and that Mr. Passiatore failed to show good cause 

for the delay in filing the petition. 

BACKGROUND

In August 2008, Mr. Passiatore retired from the Postal Service. Six months later, in February 2009, he filed 

an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board 

alleging that his retirement was involuntary. In June 

2009, the administrative judge issued an initial decision 

dismissing his appeal for failure to make a nonfrivolous 

allegation of involuntariness.

Mr. Passiatore filed a petition for review with the 

Board four years later, in April 2014. In the petition, he 

stated that he did not receive a copy of the administrative 

judge’s initial decision until November 2013. He also 

alleged that his counsel had retired from practice in 

August 2010.

The Board informed Mr. Passiatore that his petition 

appeared to be untimely, and it directed him to show good 

cause for his late filing. Mr. Passiatore subsequently filed 

a “Motion to Accept Filing As Timely and/or to Ask the 

Board to Waive or Set Aside the Time Limit.” In that 

submission, he reiterated that he did not receive the 

initial decision until November 2013, and he alleged that 

he was hospitalized with a severe illness in November 

2013 that affected his ability to file a petition for review of 

the initial decision once he had received a copy of that 

decision. Mr. Passiatore submitted no documentary or 

other evidence with his motion. 

Case: 15-3015 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/04/2015
PASSIATORE v. MSPB 3

The Board considered Mr. Passiatore’s submission

and ruled that his petition was untimely filed. Under the 

Board’s regulations, a petition for review must be filed 

within 35 days after the date of issuance of the initial 

decision or, if the petitioner shows that the initial decision 

was received more than five days after the date of issuance, within 30 days after the date the petitioner received 

the initial decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board 

explained that, even crediting Mr. Passiatore’s assertion 

that he did not receive the initial decision in his case until 

November 2013, he did not meet his burden of establishing good cause for the five-month delay between his 

asserted receipt of the initial decision in November 2013

and his filing of the petition for review in April 2014. 

The Board found Mr. Passiatore’s assertion that his

counsel had retired from practice to be insufficient to 

excuse his untimely filing. See Minor v. Dep't of the Air 

Force, 109 M.S.P.R. 692, 695 (2008); see also Abney v. 

Office of Pers. Mgmt., 89 M.S.P.R. 305, 309 (2001) (“[A] 

lack of representation, or an inability to obtain representation, does not establish good cause for an untimely filing 

of a petition for review.”). As for Mr. Passiatore’s assertion that he had been ill in November 2013, the Board 

found that claim to be uncorroborated. Sanders v. Dep't 

of the Treasury, 88 M.S.P.R. 370, 373 (2001) (“To establish 

that an untimely filed petition for review was the result of 

an illness, the party must identify the time period during 

which she suffered from the illness, support her allegation 

with corroborating medical or other evidence, and explain 

how the illness prevented her from timely filing her 

petition or requesting an extension of time.”). Accordingly, the Board dismissed Mr. Passiatore’s petition as 

untimely.

DISCUSSION

Our review of decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board is limited by statute. A Board decision must 

Case: 15-3015 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/04/2015
4 PASSIATORE v. MSPB

be affirmed unless it is 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 this case, the Board did not abuse its discretion in 

finding Mr. Passiatore’s filing to be untimely. The Board 

assumed that Mr. Passiatore had not received the initial 

decision in his case until November 2013. However, it

concluded that he had not shown good cause for his delay 

in filing his petition for review until April 2014. While 

Mr. Passiatore offered some description of his illness and 

its effects, it was not unreasonable for the Board to find 

that his account of his illness, which was not accompanied 

by any corroborating documentation, was insufficient to 

establish both that he was suffering from a debilitating 

illness in November 2013 and that its effects were so 

severe and long-lasting that he was incapacitated for 

months after November 2013 and was unable to file his 

petition for review until April 2014.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order dismissing 

Mr. Passiatore’s petition as untimely. 

No costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-3015 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/04/2015