NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2010-3004

NICHOLAS S. TROBOVIC, Petitioner,

v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

Nicholas S. Trobovic , of Berwyn, Pennsylvania, pro se. Michael D. Austin , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Ju stice, of Washington, DC, fo r respondent. On the brief were Tony West , Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, Alan J. Lo Re , Assistant Director, and Robert E. Chandler , Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was F. Allen Phaup , Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, General Law Division, United States General Services Division, of Washington, DC. Appealed from: Merit S ystems Protection BoardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2010-3004 NICHOLAS S. TROBOVIC, Petitioner,

v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.

Petition for review of the Me rit Systems Protection Board in consolidated case nos. NY0752070202-C-1,NY0752050347-C-1, PH 3443080242-C-1, NY0353070004-C-1, NY0353080118-C-1, NY0353080130-C-1, NY0752080012-C-1, NY3443070005-C-1, and NY0752070003-C-1.

__________________________ DECIDED: April 8, 2010

__________________________ Before PROST and MOORE, Circuit Judges , and GUILFORD, District Judge

. *
PER CURIAM. BACKGROUND Nicholas S. Trobovic appeals the final decis ion of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) denying his petition for enf orcement of the settlement agreement between Mr. Trobovic and his former employer, the General Services Administration (“GSA”). We affirm

.

* Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, Distr ict Judge, United Sates District Court for the Central District of Calif ornia, sitting by designation.Mr. Trobovic filed several appeals to the MSPB in connection with the alleged constructive termination of his employm ent as a Building Management Specialist. These appeals were consolidated into three sets of cases, and all were referred to the MSPB’s Mediation Appeals Process. At m ediation, Mr. Trobovic and GSA reached a settlement agreement addressing all of t he issues among his several appeals. The terms of the settlement included Mr. Trobovic’s withdrawal, with prejudice, of all of the claims from his consolidated appeal s. He agreed not to institute any future claims regarding the issues raised in those appeals, and to withdraw several discrimination claims pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Mr. Trobovic later sought to revoke the wit hdrawal of his claims related to one set of consolidated appeals, c ontending that the settlement agreement was unenforceable due to (1) his psychiatric incapacity, (2) mu tual mistake, (3) inadequate assistance, (4) an alleged thirty-day grace period in which to repudiate the agreem ent, and (5) fraud. The administrative judge adjudicating the case found that the settl ement agreement was valid and enforceable, and dismissed Mr. Tr obovic’s reinstated claims for lack of jurisdiction due to settlement. The M SPB adopted that decision and this court subsequently affirmed. Mr. Trobovic then sought to repudiate t he settlement agreement with respect to another set of consolidated appeals, again atta cking the enforceability of the settlement agreement. The administrative judge again upheld the settlement agreement and dismissed the case. Mr. Trobov ic did not petition MSPB for review, but appealed to this court after the passage of ti me rendered the administrative judge’s decision final. This court affirmed.

2010-3004 2Mr. Trobovic then filed nine petitions for enforce ment of the settlement agreement. The petitions were consolidated in to a single case. In his petitions for enforcement, Mr. Trobovic sought to set as ide the settlement agreement on the grounds that it was invalid, and that he was fraudulent ly induced to sign it. The administrative judge held that Mr. Trobovic’s challenge to t he validity of the settlement agreement was barred by collateral estoppel, based on the prior adjudications of his consolidated appeals. Mr. Trobovic also alleged that GSA failed to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically failing to assist hi m in filing for disability retirement, and removing him based on a charge of “unavailabilit y for work.” The administrative judge heard testimony from a GSA official stating that Mr. Trobovic did not ask for help and did not make use of the resources availabl e to assist him in applying for disability retirement. The administrative judge al so noted that the settlement agreement prohibited Mr. Trobovic from contesting the charge of “unavailability for work.” The administrative judge concluded t hat GSA did not fail to perfo rm its obligations under the settlement agreement. The MSPB adopted the position of the adm inistrative judge. Mr. Trobovic now appeals the dis position of his petitions for enforcement to this court. We have jurisdiction over the appeal s from the MSPB purs uant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).

2010-3004 3DISCUSSION This court may set aside decisions of the MSPB that are arbi trary, capricious, abusive of discretion, obtai ned without procedures required by law, or unsupported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Mr. Trobovic argues to this court that GSA violated the terms of the settlement agreement because GSA agreed to file for disability retirement on his behalf, and failed to do so. 1 Mr. Trobovic explains that accord ing to the settlement agreement, he was terminated for medical unfitness for work. His disability retirement application was denied, however, for lack of medical evidenc e of unfitness for work. Mr. Trobovic argues that he requested t he medical evidence used by GSA to terminate his employment, but that GSA refus ed to provide the evidence. The attachments to Mr. Trobovic’s brief show that GSA was required to provide specified responses on Mr. Trobov ic’s disability retirement application. A letter from Mr. Trobovic to the GSA privacy executive shows that Mr. Tr obovic requested the relevant medical evidence. In response, he received from the privacy executive instructions on how to formally request his medical record s online. The documents show that Mr. Trobovic contacted the Office of Pe rsonnel Management (“OPM”) and provided OPM with copies of the settl ement agreement and the corre spondence between GSA and Mr. Trobovic related to Mr. Trobovic’s request for m edical evidence of his unfitness for duty.

1 Although GSA defends the administr ative judge’s dismissal of Mr. Trobovic’s challenge to the va lidity of the settlement agreem ent, it does not appear that Mr. Trobovic raises this issue on appeal. He asserts that t he settlement agreement should be vacated, but on the grounds that the settlement agreement was breached by GSA. To the extent that Mr. Trobovic raises the iss ue, we agree with the MSPB that Mr. Trobovic’s challenge to the validity of the se ttlement agreement is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

2010-3004 42010-3004 5 It appears that Mr. Trobovic misunderstands the level of assistance that GSA is required to provide him under the terms of the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement does not state that GSA must provide medical evidence of Mr. Trobovic’s unfitness for duty to OPM, or t hat GSA must file a disabilit y retirement application on Mr. Trobovic’s behalf. Cf., e.g. , 5 C.F.R. § 831.1205. It is st ill Mr. Trobovic’s responsibility to file the disability retirem ent application. It is GSA’s responsibility to assist him by providing certain specified responses in t he application. It is also Mr. Trobovic’s responsibility to follow standard procedures in obtaining his medical records to provide OPM the documentation of his disability. There is no evidence that Mr. Trobovic followed the instructions prov ided in the response to his privacy complaint, in order to formally request the medical evidence he needed for his disability retirement application. Because Mr. Trobovic has not shown that GSA violated the terms of the settlement agreement by failing to provi de the agreed-upon assistance, we affirm the decision of the MSPB denying Mr. Trobovic ’s petitions for enforcement. COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs.