Court Opinion

ID: 9399673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 06:00:15.272436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:56.297132
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

GLENDA M. TAYLOR,                               DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         AT-0841-16-0788-I-1

             v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: June 5, 2023
  MANAGEMENT,
              Agency,

             and

GERALD L. HIGGS, JR.,
              Intervenor.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Glenda M. Taylor, Jacksonville, Florida, pro se.

      Alison Pastor, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member

1
   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                        2

                                      FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM) denying her the decedent’s Federal Employees’ Retirement System
     (FERS) lump-sum death benefits. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one
     only in the following circumstances:       the initial decision contains erroneous
     findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous
     interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to
     the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of
     the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or
     involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of
     the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite
     the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 ( 5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).
     After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner
     has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for
     review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial
     decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b).

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         The decedent was a Federal employee enrolled in FERS before her death in
     August 2015.    Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 4 at 26, 28.       According to the
     designation of beneficiary form that OPM received prior to her death, the
     decedent designated one person to receive 100% of her lump-sum death benefits
     and cancelled all prior designations. IAF, Tab 11 at 4. The designation form also
     contained signatures from two witnesses certifying that the decedent had signed it
     in their presence. Id.
¶3         After the decedent’s death and upon application by the designee, OPM
     issued a lump-sum payment of the decedent’s death benefits to the designee on
                                                                                           3

     October 16, 2015. IAF, Tab 4 at 19-24. The appellant, the decedent’s sister, also
     applied to OPM for those benefits.           Id. at 13-18.       In a July 26, 2016
     reconsideration letter, OPM denied the appellant’s application based on the
     decedent’s designation of a different beneficiary. Id. at 6-7.
¶4         The appellant filed this appeal challenging OPM’s reconsideration decision,
     asserting that she and her brother were the rightful beneficiaries. IAF, Tab 1 at 3,
     5. She claimed that the designee fraudulently obtained those benefits. Id. She
     further claimed that those she spoke with at OPM and “other government entities”
     identified her and her brother as the beneficiaries of the decedent’s benefits;
     however, she did not produce a designation form in dicating as such. Id. at 3. The
     decedent’s brother later joined the appeal as an intervenor. 2 IAF, Tab 9 at 1.
¶5         The administrative judge identified the only issue on appeal as the
     authenticity of the designation form, notified the appellant and the intervenor of
     their burden of proof on that issue, and held the appellant’s requested hearing. 3
     IAF, Tab 1 at 2, Tab 9 at 2, Tab 16, Initial Decision (ID) at 2. In her testimony,
     the appellant argued that to her, the designation form appeared to be “cut and
     sliced” together; that the address listed for the decedent on the form was in
     Buffalo, New York, where she had not lived for several years; and that the
     decedent had been discharged from the hospital and “basically was dying when
     she signed” the designation form. IAF, Tab 11 at 4, Tab 15, Hearing Compact
     Disc (HCD) at 3:30-3:50, 5:40-6:00, 8:00-8:40 (testimony of the appellant); ID
     at 2-3. The intervenor testified that between November and December 2016, one
     of the purported witnesses to the signing told him via Facebook Instant
     2
       The administrative judge notified the designated beneficiary that she had a right to
     participate in the appeal as an intervenor, IAF, Tab 5, but she did not respond to the
     notice or file a request to intervene in this matter.
     3
       The administrative judge held two telephonic hearings in this matter. ID at 2 n.1. The
     first telephonic hearing was held on November 22, 2016. The recording from that
     hearing was either destroyed or not preserved due to a technical malfunction. Id. A
     second telephonic hearing was held on March 23, 2017. Id. Any reference to the
     hearing in this order refers to the March 23, 2017 hearing. Id.
                                                                                       4

     Messenger that she had not signed the form and that the address listed for her was
     not her home address.      HCD at 17:10-17:45, 22:40-24:00 (testimony of the
     intervenor); ID at 3. The intervenor further testified that he had sent ano ther
     message to the witness prior to the hearing, but had not received a response.
     HCD at 24:00-24:35 (testimony of the intervenor); ID at 3. He did not produce
     the written conversations because, according to him, he needed a subpoena to
     obtain those messages. HCD at 19:25-20:00 (testimony of the intervenor). He
     also testified that the decedent’s ex-husband told him that, in his opinion, the
     decedent’s signature on the designation form was forged. Id. at 10:50-11:15.
¶6        The administrative judge found the proffered evidence insufficient to
     establish that the designation form was inauthentic, and thereby agreed with OPM
     that it was required to pay the lump-sum death benefits to the designated
     beneficiary. ID at 4. She concluded that the designation form did not appear to
     be altered, as alleged by the appellant. Id. She also found that the intervenor’s
     testimony as to what the witness said was hearsay and evaluated the probative
     value of that evidence under the standards set forth in Borninkhof v. Department
     of Justice, 5 M.S.P.R. 77, 87 (1981).      ID at 4.      She found that the hearsay
     evidence was not sufficient to prove that the designation form w as inauthentic
     because it was unsworn. Id. Accordingly, she found that the appellant and the
     intervenor did not meet their burden of proving by preponderant evidence
     entitlement to any portion of the benefits sought. Id.
¶7        The appellant has filed a brief petition for review, in which she does not
     challenge the administrative judge’s findings, raise any arguments, or present any
     evidence, despite stating that she has “more to add to the case.”       Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 2. The agency has submitted a response. PFR File,
     Tab 4.
                                                                                      5

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶8        Under 5 U.S.C. § 8424(d), if an employee dies and is not survived by an
     individual entitled to a FERS annuity benefit, lump-sum death benefits must be
     issued in order of precedence, first to the beneficiary designated by the employee
     in a signed and witnessed writing received by OPM before the employee’s death.
     5 U.S.C. §§ 8401(28), 8424(d); 5 C.F.R. §§ 843.203(a), 843.205. The appellant
     has identified no error in the administrative judge’s findings that the appellant
     failed to prove that the designation form was not authentic and that OPM was
     required to pay out the death benefits as designated. ID at 4. Specifically, the
     appellant provided no evidence in support of her contention that the designatio n
     form had been cut and pasted together.      IAF, Tab 11 at 4.     Moreover, even
     crediting her claim that the decedent had not lived in Buffalo, New York, for a
     number of years, this fact alone does not cast doubt on the authenticity of the
     designation form. FERS provisions do not require the decedent to list her home
     address as the return address on the designation form. See generally 5 U.S.C.
     § 8424(d) (explaining that a designation must be signed and witnessed, and
     received by OPM prior to the employee’s death); 5 C.F.R. § 843.205 (setting
     forth these and other requirements for the designation) . The decedent’s signature
     on the form appears to be consistent with her signature on other documents
     contained in the record. IAF, Tab 4 at 10, Tab 11 at 4; see Starr v. U.S. Postal
     Service, 80 M.S.P.R. 59, ¶ 6 (1998) (explaining that identification of handwriting
     is to be determined by the trier of fact, concluding that two signatures were
     inconsistent with each other, and therefore finding that they were not signed by
     the same person).
¶9        The administrative judge did not address the appellant’s testimony that the
     decedent was terminally ill when she signed the form.         HCD at 8:10-8:37
     (testimony of the appellant). Nonetheless, we have considered this testimony and
     find no reason to disturb the initial decision.   While the appellant appears to
     suggest that the decedent’s medical condition when she designated her
                                                                                          6

      beneficiary would have rendered her incompetent, she neither alleged nor
      presented any evidence that the decedent lacked the requisite capacity to make a
      valid election. See Stubblefield v. Office of Personnel Management, 60 M.S.P.R.
      455, 459 (1994) (explaining that an individual is presumed to be competent when
      making an annuity election, absent contrary evidence) ; Panter v. Department of
      the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984) (finding that an adjudicatory error
      that is not prejudicial to a party’s substantive rights provides no basis for reversal
      of an initial decision).
¶10         As for the intervenor’s testimony that a purported witness to the designation
      of beneficiary denied signing the form, it is hearsay because it is an out-of-court
      statement that the intervenor offered as proof of the matter asserted —that the
      designation form was inauthentic. 4         See Taylor v. U.S. Postal Service,
      75 M.S.P.R. 322, 325 (1997) (citing the definition of hearsay set forth in Fed. R.
      Evid. 801(c)). Hearsay is admissible in Board proceedings and may be accepted
      as preponderant evidence even without corroboration; however, it “must be
      evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine if [it] is inherently truthful and
      more credible than the evidence offered against it.”                Social Security
      Administration v. Long, 113 M.S.P.R. 190, ¶¶ 26-27 (2010) (quoting Sanders v.
      U.S. Postal Service, 801 F.2d 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1986)), aff’d, 635 F.3d 526
      (Fed. Cir. 2011). As properly identified by the administrative judge, the Board
      evaluates the probative value of hearsay evidence under the factors identified in
      Borninkhof, 5 M.S.P.R. at 87, including such factors as the availability of persons
      with firsthand knowledge to testify at the hearing, whether th e out-of-court
      statements were sworn, whether the declarants were disinterested, the consistency
      of the out-of-court statements with other statements and evidence, whether there

      4
        The administrative judge did not make an express finding as to the intervenor’s
      credibility and whether he testified accurately to the substance of the conversation
      between him and the witness. ID at 2-3. However, we assume for the purposes of our
      analysis that the administrative judge implicitly found the intervenor to be credible.
                                                                                            7

      is corroboration or contradiction in the record, and the credibility of the
      declarant. Id.
¶11         We agree with the administrative judge’s finding that the hearsay evidence
      was not sufficiently probative. ID at 3-4. Weighing in the intervenor’s favor is
      the fact that the witness was seemingly disinterested because she was not a
      beneficiary.     IAF, Tab 11 at 4; see Bruhn v. Department of Agriculture,
      124 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶ 14 (2016) (assigning significant probative value to the hearsay
      evidence, a local police report, in part because of the drafter’s lack of interest in
      the matter). However, we decline to disturb the administrative judge’s finding
      that this lack of interest was outweighed by other factors. ID at 4. The statement
      was unsworn; the intervenor presented no evidence corroborating his claim that
      the witness did not sign the form; he presented no evidence of the witness’s
      credibility; the witness also signed the decedent’s will a few days before signing
      the designation, undermining her alleged statement that she did not sign the
      designation of beneficiary; and although the intervenor testified that he was
      unable to reconnect with the witness, there is no indication that the witness was
      unavailable to testify or that the intervenor made a sufficient effort to obtain a
      signed statement, such as by subpoenaing the witness. 5 IAF, Tab 4 at 11, Tab 11
      at 4; HCD at 11:55-13:20, 22:45-24:40 (testimony of the intervenor); see Vojas v.
      Office of Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 502, ¶ 13 (2011) (finding that the
      absence of corroborating evidence and the lack of evidence indicating that the
      declarants were unavailable to testify at the hearing or that the appellant had
      attempted, but was unable, to obtain sworn statements weighed against assigning

      5
          The intervenor also believed that the designation form was forged because the
      witnesses were listed as having the same address, even though they do not
      live together. HCD at 11:55-13:20 (testimony of the intervenor). The relevancy of
      their living situation is unclear because the address listed for both witnesses seems to
      be a business address for a Department of Veterans Affairs facility, not their
      home addresses.      IAF, Tab 11 at 4; see U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,
      Veterans Health Administration Office of Community Care, Denver, Colorado
      https://www.va.gov/directory/guide/facility.asp?id=2015 (last visited June 5, 2023).
                                                                                            8

      significant probative weight to the declarants’ unsworn statements); Krbec v.
      Department of Transportation, 21 M.S.P.R. 239, 242 (1984) (observing that an
      agency’s failure to subpoena witnesses with firsthand knowledge weighed against
      assigning significant probative value to the hearsay evidence) , aff’d, 770 F.2d 180
      (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Table). Therefore, we agree with the administrative judge’s
      finding that this hearsay evidence is not sufficiently reliable or trustworthy to be
      afforded significant probative value.
¶12         Accordingly, we find that the administrative judge properly determined that
      the designation form on file with OPM was authentic and that OPM was required
      to pay the entirety of the decedent’s FERS death benefits to the designee as
      provided therein. See Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond , 496 U.S.
      414, 416, 424, 434 (1990) (finding that OPM may only distribute funds from the
      Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund as permitted by Congress,
      regardless of equitable considerations).        We therefore deny the appellant’s
      petition for review and affirm the initial decision.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6
            You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
      statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
      review and the appropriate forum with which to file.              5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
      Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
      Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
      appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
      statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
      jurisdiction.   If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
      immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all

      6
        Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
      the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
      Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                        9

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general. As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition   to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any att orney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
                                                                                 10

      (2) Judicial   or   EEOC    review    of   cases   involving   a   claim   of
discrimination. This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims—by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court (not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.    5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security.         See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                                                                                     11

                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                  P.O. Box 77960
                             Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                            Office of Federal Operations
                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                 131 M Street, N.E.
                                   Suite 5SW12G
                             Washington, D.C. 20507

      (3) Judicial     review   pursuant     to   the   Whistleblower       Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012. This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or
2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial
review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court
of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 7 The court of appeals must receive your
petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.
5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

7
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial revi ew of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. N o. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                                12

      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                             U.S. Court of Appeals
                             for the Federal Circuit
                            717 Madison Place, N.W.
                            Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx.

FOR THE BOARD:                                    /s/ for
                                          Jennifer Everling
                                          Acting Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.