NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

HATTIE R. BASS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2010-3105 

__________________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Case No. SF831E080563-I-2. 

___________________________ 

Decided: December 27, 2010 

___________________________ 

RONALD P. ACKERMAN, Law Offices of Ronald P. Ackerman, of Culver City, California, for petitioner. 

TARA K. HOGAN, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the 

brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE 

E. DAVIDSON, Director, and BRIAN M. SIMKIN, Assistant 

Director. 
BASS v. OPM 2

__________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, PLAGER, AND PROST, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Ms. Hattie R. Bass appeals the decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board denying her application for retirement disability benefits. Bass v. Office of Personnel 

Mgmt., No. SF831E080563-I-2 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 25, 2010). 

The Board determined that Ms. Bass’s application was 

untimely and that the untimeliness was not excused by 

reason of mental incompetence. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In accordance with section 8337(a) of title 5, an employee may apply for disability retirement after at least five 

years of civilian service if “unable, because of disease or 

injury, to render useful and efficient service in the employee's position and is not qualified for reassignment.” 

Approved applicants receive an annuity as determined by 

the Department of Labor. See 5 U.S.C. §8337(a), (g) (2000). 

Applications must be filed before the employee is separated 

from the service or within one year thereafter. However, an 

application will be deemed timely if the applicant can establish that she was “mentally incompetent” during the relevant filing period and the application is filed within one 

year after the restoration of competency or the appointment 

of a fiduciary. §8337(b). 

Ms. Bass resigned from service with the Department of 

Veterans Affairs on July 21, 1993 after nineteen years of 

employment. At the time of her resignation, Ms. Bass was 

experiencing psychological problems. Ms. Bass testified 

that the problems were “serious,” and included verbal 
3 BASS v. OPM

outbursts and urinary incontinence that forced her to miss 

work. Medical records demonstrate that during the 1993-

1994 time period Ms. Bass was evaluated and treated by 

various physicians due to episodes of mental illness. On 

November 24, 1993 she was diagnosed with subchronic 

paranoid schizophrenia at the UCLA Medical Center. In 

January 1994 she was involuntarily hospitalized as a danger to herself and others. 

However, during the same time frame Ms. Bass’s regular psychiatrist Dr. Gilbert described her as “logical and 

coherent without delusion or involuntary movements.” Dr. 

Gilbert’s reports reflect that Ms. Bass resigned from her job 

at the VA because she believed that she had cancer and 

wanted to work part-time to be able to enjoy her remaining 

life. During her November 1993 evaluation at UCLA, Ms. 

Bass told her physician that her paranoia did not “really 

prevent her [from] carry[ing] out her daily activity and 

looking for a job.” She denied all psychotic symptoms. 

From February 1994 until July 1994, Ms. Bass was treated 

at Long Beach Mental Hospital where she was medicated 

and supervised. Social worker Mercy Cotton noted that Ms. 

Bass’s judgment was intact and her thought associations 

unimpaired. No psychiatric markers were deemed severe 

and she was deemed to be independent on all basic living 

skills. 

Ms. Bass first applied for disability retirement on October 20, 1995. OPM denied her application on the ground 

that it had been filed more than one year after her resignation from the VA. Ms. Bass filed a second application on 

May 8, 2007. This application was not ruled upon by OPM 

in light of the 1995 denial. On June 27, 2008 Ms. Bass 

appealed these decisions to the Board. 
BASS v. OPM 4

After a hearing involving four witnesses, the Administrative Judge found that from July 21, 1993 to May 8, 2007 

Ms. Bass was impaired by chronic paranoid schizophrenia 

and at no time since her diagnosis was she “recovered” from 

her disease. However, the Administrative Judge also found 

that Ms. Bass was “functional” during the relevant time 

periods and “more than minimally able to manage her 

affairs.” For example, Ms. Bass was found to have substantially handled her own bills and financial affairs, maintained an apartment, drove and maintained an automobile, 

and applied for benefits from the Social Security Administration. The Board denied her application as untimely 

filed, and not excused by mental incompetence. On appeal, 

Ms. Bass argues that “the overwhelming evidence” supports 

a finding that she was mentally incompetent during significant portions of the relevant time periods following her 

resignation. 

DISCUSSION

We are charged with reviewing the Board’s actions, findings, and conclusions to ensure that they are not (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 

(1998). 

The standard for waiver of timely filing under §8337 is 

“an inability to handle one's personal affairs because of 

either physical or mental disease or injury.” Rapp v. Office 

of Personnel Mgmt., 483 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

“The claimant is not required to have been a raving lunatic 

continuously” in order to be deemed mentally incompetent 

to apply for benefits. French v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 

810 F.2d 1118, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1987). However, the court 
5 BASS v. OPM

has also held that a person who suffers one or more mental 

disabilities is not necessarily mentally incompetent to file 

an application for benefits. See McLaughlin v. Office of 

Personnel Mgmt., 353 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004 

(“[W]hether an applicant should be excused from the normal 

filing deadlines for mental incompetence does not require a 

review of a disability determination.”) These fact-driven 

agency determinations are reviewed for support by substantial evidence. 

The Board found that although Ms. Bass was afflicted 

by chronic paranoid schizophrenia from 1993 to 2007, she 

was not “mentally incompetent” for the purposes of §8337(b) 

because she was sufficiently functional in her personal 

affairs. This finding is supported by substantial evidence. 

Ms. Bass’s current psychiatrist, Sam Smith, M.D., testified 

that Ms. Bass’s condition varies in severity and while some 

patients are “devastated” by the ailment, others are “functional.” He testified that Ms. Bass’s case manager during 

the relevant time period believed that Ms. Bass was “functional,” although her case was “a very inconsistent picture.” 

 Ms. Bass herself testified that she took care of her own 

finances to a large degree, and when she “was thinking 

halfway decent [she] would go to the food bank and get 

food.” She also went to the Long Beach Clinic once or twice 

a month to receive treatment and medication. Two other 

witnesses, Ms. Bass’s brother and a close friend, testified 

that Ms. Bass handled her personal finances and other dayto-day tasks substantially on her own. 

Ms. Bass argues that under the Board’s decision in Hass 

v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 84 M.S.P.R. 110, 114 (1999), 

she need only demonstrate incompetency for “significant 

portions” of the relevant time period to support waiver of 

the application deadline. The Board held in Hass that the 

inference of continuous incompetency can be contradicted by 
BASS v. OPM 6

“preponderant evidence to the contrary.” Id. Although Ms. 

Bass clearly had episodes in 1993 and 1994, substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s finding that Ms. Bass was 

able to manage her personal affairs during the statutory 

period. She was receiving treatment and medication on a 

regular basis, and her episodes were generally not long 

lasting. 

Deference must be given to the findings of an administrative factfinder, particularly when there was extensive 

witness testimony and a fully developed argument. See

Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). “The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative 

agency's finding from being supported.” Id. Here the 

Board’s finding that Ms. Bass was “more than minimally 

able to manage her affairs during most of the period at 

issue” was supported by substantial credible evidence, and 

the correct legal standard was applied. Accordingly, the 

Board’s decision must be affirmed. 

Each party shall bear its costs. 

AFFIRMED.