Opinion ID: 1037578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fully Recovered

Text: First, Stewart asserted Board jurisdiction as a fully recovered employee. An employee who fully recovers from a compensable injury after one year is entitled to “priority consideration, agencywide, for restoration to the position he or she left or an equivalent one provided he or she applies for reappointment within 30 days of the cessation of compensation.” 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(b). “Fully recovered” means “compensation payments have been terminated on the basis that the employee is able to perform all the duties of the position he or she left or an equivalent one.” 5 C.F.R. § 353.102. To establish Board jurisdiction as a fully recovered employee, Stewart must make nonfrivolous allegations that: “(1) [s]he was separated because of a compensable injury; (2) she has fully recovered more than one year after the date she became eligible for OWCP benefits; (3) she requested restoration within 30 days after the cessation of OWCP compensation; and (4) she believes that the agency violated her reemployment priority rights.” Nevins v. U.S. Postal Serv., 107 M.S.P.R. 595, 600 (2008). STEWART v. MSPB 9 Here, the AJ and the Board found that Stewart failed to carry her burden as to the first and third jurisdictional elements. As to the first element, the Board found that the agency “separated her because she had been in LWOP status for over a year” and her non-work-related injuries prevented her from fulfilling her work duties. Final Decision, 2012 MSPB LEXIS 4305, at . With respect to the third element, the AJ found that Stewart failed to timely request restoration within 30 days after compensation ended for both of her OWCP claims. Specifically, the AJ found that the OWCP terminated her first claim effective May 30, 2008, and her second claim terminated on October 16, 2009, when she received her last monetary compensation payment for that claim. Because she failed to request restoration within 30 days of either date, the AJ found—and the Board agreed—that Stewart failed to satisfy the third jurisdictional element. Accordingly, the Board concluded that Stewart failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of Board jurisdiction. In this appeal, Stewart seems to assert most of the same arguments she made to the Board. 4 First, she argues that the agency separated her due to her workrelated injuries. As the Board found, however, the evidence of record included medical reports providing that Stewart’s work-related injuries had ceased and that her restrictions were due to non-work-related conditions. Final Decision, 2012 MSPB LEXIS 4305, at  (“Nothing in the record would contradict the medical reports identifying the appellant’s degenerative conditions or outlining the resultant medical restrictions.”). Stewart also argues that: (1) she was not fully recovered as of October 16, 2009, because she continued to receive medical benefits; and (2) she did not receive 4 Stewart does not renew her argument that her claim presents a “mixed case,” and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it does. 10 STEWART v. MSPB sufficient notice that her second claim had terminated. The Board addressed both of these arguments and found that they lacked merit. We agree. As to the first issue, the Board explained that “[e]ven a fully recovered employee may receive periodic payments for medical expenses related to the compensable injury.” Final Decision, 2012 MSPB LEXIS 4305, at . Indeed, under the Board’s case law, “[i]t is the cessation of periodic support payments the injured employee received while temporarily totally or partially disabled, not the termination of payment of scheduled compensation or medical benefits, that triggers a finding that the appellant is fully recovered and entitled to restoration rights.” Nixon v. Dep’t of Treasury, 104 M.S.P.R. 189, 193 (2006). It is well-established that “an employee is deemed fully recovered from work-related injuries when OWCP benefits cease.” As’Salaam v. U.S. Postal Serv., 85 M.S.P.R. 76, 84 (2000) (citations omitted). The OWCP’s determination that an employee has fully recovered is “final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact.” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)(1)). Here, the OWCP terminated Stewart’s first injury claim effective May 30, 2008. Although Stewart argues that the OWCP never terminated her second injury claim, the Board specifically found that: (1) the “September 29, 2009 letter clearly informed her that the OWCP no longer considered her medically eligible for wage loss compensation”; and (2) because she received notice of her restoration rights in connection with her first claim, “she cannot reasonably argue that she was unaware of those rights.” Final Decision, 2012 MSPB LEXIS 4305, at . We find no error in the Board’s analysis. Because Stewart did not seek restoration until June 6, 2011—long after the 30 day period had expired—she failed to satisfy the third element of the jurisdictional inquiry. Accordingly, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion that Stewart failed to make a STEWART v. MSPB 11 nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction as a fully-recovered employee under 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(b).