Opinion ID: 494229
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 12 It is settled that the board's jurisdiction is not plenary and is limited to actions appealable to it under any law, rule, or regulation. 1 Roche has the burden of showing that the board has jurisdiction in this matter. 2 13 Roche could not appeal his removal to the board because he was terminated during his probationary period, 3 and he was not a veteran. 4 However, Roche could appeal the denial of restoration rights 5 if he could show that his removal was the result of a compensable injury or was substantially related to a compensable injury. 6 14 The AJ and the board relied on the board's opinion in Miner v. United States Postal Service 7 in holding that the board did not have jurisdiction over Roche's appeal. However, the Minor case is distinguishable from this one. In Minor, the appellant was removed for filing a false injury claim, and an arbitrator upheld the removal on that basis. The board found that Minor's removal did not result from, or substantially relate to, her injury because the injury did not cause her to utter a false statement. This court agreed with the board because Minor was removed for filing a false accident report, which was unrelated to the compensable injury. Here, Roche alleged that his inability to perform the casing job, the reason for his removal, was caused by the restrictions placed on him because of his injury. 15 Therefore, the question is whether Roche sufficiently alleged that he was removed due to a compensable injury or for reasons substantially related to a compensable injury. The board concluded that he had not. It agreed with the AJ's determination that the thrust of Roche's argument was that the agency's failure to train him caused his performance problems and, hence, his removal. In reaching that finding, the AJ relied on Roche's arguments to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (OEEO) in his discrimination complaint, as well as his arguments to the board. 16 Although it was not error for the AJ to consider the additional arguments made to the OEEO since they were submitted to the board, in this case it led to an erroneous conclusion that the board did not have jurisdiction of this appeal. It is true that most of the OEEO complaint dealt with allegations of improper training and that these charges were repeated in Roche's argument to the board in support of jurisdiction. However, the correct inquiry is not what the main thrust of his argument was but, rather, whether he sufficiently alleged that his removal was due to, or for reasons substantially related to, a compensable injury. Whatever the main thrust of his argument was, if in addition he made a nonfrivolous claim that his removal was the result of his compensable injury, then Roche is entitled to a hearing on jurisdiction. 17 Pro se petitioners are not expected to frame issues with the precision of a common law pleading. Roche has not just raised a justiciable issue in language which may be so read as to constitute a sufficient allegation; the allegation fairly leaps off the pages of his submissions. Our review of his submission on the jurisdiction question reveals that he was clearly alleging that his case fell within the board's regulation regarding restoration after recovery from a compensable injury and the board's cases interpreting that regulation. Roche cited the relevant statute and regulation in his argument, as well as citing and explaining several of the board's prior cases involving that regulation. This argument, combined with his submission of the doctor's report listing his physical restrictions at the time of his return to light duty, is sufficient to allege that he was removed because of his injury. Indeed, on the first page of his submission Roche stated that 18 [h]is separation, two and one half (2 1/2) weeks after returning to his employment as a partially recovered employee to work on light duty, was substantially related to his injury. Therefore, appellant seeks jurisdiction at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8151(b)(1); and 5 C.F.R. Sec. 353.103[.] Ruppert v. U.S. Postal Service, [8 M.S.P.B. 256] 8 M.S.P.R. 593; McKoy v. Department of Army, M.S.P.B. 1984, 18 M.S.P.R. 636. 19 Roche's argument clearly put the board on notice of the reason why he thought the board had jurisdiction, and the doctor's report supported his argument. Thus, he presented a nonfrivolous allegation of jurisdiction.