Court Opinion

ID: 9472612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:05:45.405636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:02.586343
License: Public Domain

NIES, Circuit Judge,
concurring-in-part.
I join the majority opinion. However, since I believe the jurisdictional question can be resolved on a broader ground, I add the following alternative analysis.
The statute provides for civil service retirement benefits in 5 U.S.C. § 8331 et seq. The particular portion of the statute pertaining to the adjudication of claims is found in 5 U.S.C. § 8347 which provides in pertinent part:
§ 8347. Administration; regulations
(b) ... The Office shall adjudicate all claims under the subchapter.
>¡e s¡< sk >1* Jfc He
(d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, an administrative action or order affecting the rights or interests of an individual or of the United States under this subehapter may be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
(2) In the case of any individual found by the Office to be disabled in whole or in part on the basis of the individual’s mental condition, and that finding was made pursuant to an application by an agency for purposes of disability retirement under section 8337(a) of this title, the procedures under section 7701 of this title shall apply and the decision of the Board shall be subject to judicial review under section 7703 of this title.
*884In my view, a decision by the MSPB on a claim for benefits under section 8347(d)(1) is not reviewable by this court unless the claim comes within section 8347(d)(2). The latter is limited to cases of involuntary retirement for mental disability. Any other decision by the MSPB under 8347(d)(1) is not appealable. An interpretation of the statute allowing other decisions of the MSPB on claims to be appealable would effectively render 8347(d)(2) meaningless. This analysis appears in Lindahl v. OPM, 718 F.2d 391, 399 (Fed.Cir.1983).
As in Lindahl, this case is based on a voluntary disability retirement claim. The only difference between the two cases is that, in the present case, a survivor seeks benefits, while in Lindahl, the claimant was the former employee. I see no basis whatsoever for distinguishing the two situations. If anything, it would seem to me that the former employee would have a greater entitlement to judicial review under the civil service retirement system than would his survivors.
Finally, since the Lindahl decision on jurisdiction is under review by the Supreme Court, I believe it is appropriate to consider the merits here in the interest of complete disposition at this time. Assuming jurisdiction, I would affirm the decision on the merits for the reasons stated in the Board’s opinion.