Opinion ID: 2805904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New Material Evidence

Text: The Board may grant a petition for review if the petitioner presents new and material evidence “that, despite due diligence, was not available when the record closed.” Azarkish v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 915 F.2d 675, 679 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d)). New evidence is evidence that first becomes available after the record closes. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115(d). Evidence is material if it “is of sufficient weight to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision.” Wright v. U.S. Postal Serv., 183 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Lucas argues that she presented new and material evidence which went unconsidered by the Board. Lucas points to the SSA Response Screen document that was not produced by OPM until after Lucas filed her petition for review with the Board. Pet’r’s Br. 2–3. Lucas argues that OPM’s failure to turn the document over to either the administrative judge or to her contravened an order from the administrative judge. Id. at 9. That response screen document, dated September 10, 2008, contains details related to Lucas’ SSA payment history in 2007. Specifically, it shows that Lucas received SSA payments on May 1, 2007 and December 1, 2007. Pet’r’s App. 26. Lucas contends that this document establishes that OPM was able to “view” the benefits she was receiving from SSA as early as 2008. Pet’r’s Br. 3. She argues that because OPM had this information in 2008 and did not act on it until 2010, she is entitled to waiver of the obligation to repay the overpayment. OPM concedes that the Board did not consider Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document in its decision denying Lucas’ petition for review. Resp’t’s Br. 12. But because it was in the record when the Board issued its final decision, OPM argues, we must presume that the Board considered it and found it to not be material. Id. at 13. OPM points LUCAS v. OPM 7 out that Lucas did not cite evidence that the Board did not consider Lucas’ Response Screen document. Id. The government contends that the Response Screen document does not establish that OPM discovered Lucas’ overpayments before July 2010, or that OPM delayed in responding to the overpayment after becoming aware of it. Id. We find that Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document constitutes new and material evidence. OPM admitted that the document was inadvertently “omitted from the agency appeal file” submitted to the regional Board. Resp’t’s App. 31. OPM further acknowledged that “the administrative judge and the appellant were not made aware of the document.” Id. As such, the SSA Response Screen document was not available to Lucas until after she filed her petition for review, well after the administrative judge rendered the initial decision and the close of the record on June 14, 2013. OPM was required by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.25 to produce all documents contained in the agency’s record of the action. The government acknowledged it produced these documents minus Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document. Id. at 25. Because Lucas had no knowledge that OPM was in possession of this critical document, or that it even existed, she could not have obtained the document prior to the close of the record by exercising due diligence. Accordingly, Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document is new evidence. The SSA Response Screen document shows that Lucas was receiving SSA benefits in 2007. In her informal reply brief, filed after OPM moved to admit the document, Lucas contended that the document’s date, October 16, 2008, demonstrated that OPM had notice of her receipt of SSA benefits in 2008. Pet’r’s App. 9. It appears that OPM did not respond to this argument, effectively conceding it to Lucas. Taken as true, Lucas’ assertion 8 LUCAS v. OPM that OPM was on notice of her receipt of SSA benefits in 2008 could warrant a different outcome in her case. In denying Lucas’ petition for review, the Board made no mention of the late-submitted document. Yet, the Board found that OPM’s expeditious adjustment of Lucas’ annuity was a factor weighing against a finding that repayment under the circumstances would be unconscionable. 1 Resp’t’s App. 6. The Board relied on two cases to support its expediency finding, Spinella v. Office of Personnel Management, 109 M.S.P.R. 185 (2008) and Taylor v. Office of Personnel Management, 87 M.S.P.R. 214 (2000), in which long delays before adjustment of the annuity were not unconscionable because the agency acted promptly after discovering the overpayment. Id. If Lucas’ assertion that the Board had notice of her receipt of SSA benefits since 2008 is correct, then OPM’s adjustment of her benefits was not expeditious. This undermines one basis for the Board’s conclusion that the delay was not unconscionable. As such, Lucas’ SSA Response Screen document is also material evidence.