Court Opinion

ID: 9408265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 06:00:14.052588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.025502
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CYRIL R. ANYAOHA,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        SF-844E-18-0424-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: July 11, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Henry E. Leinen, Pacific Grove, California, for the appellant.

           Cynthia Reinhold, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     dismissed his disability retirement annuity appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding
     that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) had failed to issue a requisite
     final decision.   For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     petition for review, VACATE the initial decision, and REMAND the case to the
     Western Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand
     Order.

                                         BACKGROUND
¶2         OPM approved the appellant’s disability retirement based on depression and
     post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) conditions in 2012.       Initial Appeal File
     (IAF), Tab 1 at 8. It terminated his disability retirement annuity on June 30,
     2015, based on its determination that the appellant had returned to earning
     capacity. Id. at 7-8. After the appellant contacted OPM about reinstating his
     disability annuity, OPM provided him with information on how to apply for
     reinstatement.    Id. at 7.     On March 27, 2017, OPM issued an initial decision
     stating that it had not received the required documentation from the appellant, and
     thus he had not met all requirements for reinstatement of his disability annuity.
     Id. at 8. OPM’s initial decision stated that the appellant had 30 calendar days to
     request reconsideration of the decision. Id. The decision further stated that if the
     appellant failed to submit his request for reconsideration within the time limit,
     OPM would dismiss his request as untimely unless he can show that he was
     unaware of the time limit, not notified of the time limit, or prevented from
     responding by circumstances beyond his control. IAF, Tab 5 at 7. The initial
     decision was signed by a Legal Administrative Specialist within the Disability,
     Reconsideration and Appeals division of OPM. Id.
¶3         Although not stated in the record, the 30-calendar-day time limit in which
     the appellant had to request reconsideration of the initial decision lapsed on
     April 26, 2017. Apparently in response to the March 27, 2017 letter, on May 2,
     2017, the appellant emailed the same Legal Administrative Specialist who issued
     the initial decision stating:
              I would like to have some extra time to provide the [information
              requested]. I am receiving care from the [Veterans Administration]
              Oakland mental health program. I am receiving help with a social
                                                                                            3

           worker and clinical psychiatrist nurse practitioner who would like to
           know if they can contact you to see what you need in terms of
           providing [the requisite documentation you need].
     IAF, Tab 3 at 7-8. That same day, the Legal Administrative Specialist responded
     to his email saying that “there is no need to worry because this is just the initial
     decision” and that, if the appellant cannot get the requisite documents wi thin the
     30-day time limit, he could “request reconsideration which is very easy to do.”
     Id. at 7. The Legal Administrative Specialist went on to state that, in order to do
     so, the appellant only needed to “sign and date the reconsideration request and
     fax or mail it back to the office within 30 days.” 2 Id.
¶4         The following day, on May 3, 2017, the appellant responded to the chain of
     emails saying that, per their conversation, he had attached a signed and dated
     letter requesting reconsideration.     Id.    The Legal Administrative Specialist
     responded, saying that she is no longer involved in the appellant’s case. Id. at 6.
     She also provided an address to which the appellant needed to send his request for
     reconsideration and stated that “[a] request for reconsideration must be received
     in OPM within 30 calendar days of the date of this letter.” Id. (emphasis added).
     The appellant responded, saying that it “sounds to me that I need to submit a
     letter to request a reconsideration to the address you provided below within
     30 days of this letter to review the decision to my case.”              Id.    The Legal
     Administrative Specialist responded “correct.” Id.
¶5         On May 30, 2017, the appellant formally requested reconsideration of the
     reinstatement decision regarding his disability annuity.          IAF, Tab 1 at 9. The
     agency   appears    to   have   conceded     below   that   the    appellant   requested
     reconsideration on May 30, 2017. IAF, Tab 5 at 4. The request stated that it was
     filed late due to processing of the appellant’s documents through the Department
     of Veterans Affairs (VA) and attached documentation from the VA stating that he

     2
       This entire email conversation took place after the original 30-day time limit on the
     initial decision had already lapsed.
                                                                                         4

     continued to receive therapy, treatment, and medication for his PTSD and
     depression. IAF, Tab 1 at 9-10.
¶6         On August 29, 2017, seemingly in response to an email from the appella nt,
     a different Legal Administrative Specialist with OPM emailed the appellant ,
     saying that she was not assigned to his case but would forward his email to the
     correct party and that, “[a]ccording to the system, your case is active.”        IAF,
     Tab 3 at 9.   On September 14, 2017, the appellant emailed OPM retirement
     services, stating “I’m not sure what’s going on, I’ve tried several times to inquiry
     from [sic] OPM” and that “I need my disability annuity and I’m not sure if the
     request I sent to restore my annuity is still pending for reconsideration.”       Id.
     at 10-11. He received an automated response from OPM. Id.
¶7         On October 27, 2017, the appellant emailed a third Legal Administrative
     Specialist, stating that he was trying to get reinstatement of his disability annuity
     and was enclosing clinical documentation detailing the status of his depression
     and PTSD conditions.      IAF, Tab 1 at 13.      He further stated that he had not
     returned to his prior earning capacity, and he attached his Leave and Earnings
     statement from his current employer.       Id.    Over the next several days, the
     appellant exchanged emails with this third Legal Administrative Specialist,
     ironing out the specific documents the appellant needed to provide. Id. at 12-13.
     The appellant provided his 2016 W-2 tax return and offered to provide any other
     requisite documentation.      Id.    On November 22, 2017, the third Legal
     Administrative Specialist informed the appellant that his “case is in our
     Disability, Reconsideration, & Appeals Branch for a medical review. A decision
     has not yet been made.” Id. at 12. On January 10, 2018, the appellant emailed
     the third Legal Administrative Specialist, inquiring about the status of his case
     and again offering to provide any additional documents as needed.          Id.   The
     record does not show any response to this last email.
¶8         On April 4, 2018, the appellant filed an appeal with the Board stating that
     OPM had failed to issue a final decision “for reasons unknown” and asked the
                                                                                         5

      Board to order OPM to reinstate his disability annuity. IAF, Tab 1 at 6.         On
      April 17, 2018, OPM filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.        IAF,
      Tab 5 at 4-5. According to OPM, “the appellant requested reconsideration of the
      initial decision on May 30, 2017; however the appellant has not received any
      appealable decision from OPM.” Id. at 4. Because OPM had not issued a final
      decision on the appellant’s request for reconsideration, OPM argued, the Board
      lacked jurisdiction. Id. at 4-5.
¶9             The administrative judge issued an initial decision declining to find that
      OPM had refused or improperly failed to issue a final decision.         IAF, Tab 6,
      Initial Decision (ID) at 6. Rather, due to the emails and communications between
      the appellant and various persons at OPM, the administrative judge found that
      OPM had his reconsideration request before it and was working towards a
      decision.       ID at 6-7.   Accordingly, the administrative judge granted OPM’s
      motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal for lack of ju risdiction without a
      hearing. ID at 7.
¶10            On June 15, 2018, OPM issued its final decision in the matter. Petition for
      Review (PFR) File, Tab 3 at 6.        The final decision stated that the appellant’s
      request for reconsideration was received by OPM beyond the allowable time
      limit.    Id.    It further stated that, because his request for reconsideration was
      untimely, OPM could only reconsider its initial determination if he could show
      either (1) that he was not notified of the time limit or otherwise aware of it, or
      (2) that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from making the
      request within the time limit. Id. According to OPM, they sent the appellant a
      letter on May 10, 2018, requesting evidence to show why his request for
      reconsideration was untimely, but he failed to respond. 3 Id. Because he failed to
      present sufficient evidence on the timeliness issue, his request for reconsideration

      3
        Other than this reference in OPM’s final decision, this May 10, 2018 communication
      from OPM to the appellant is absent from the record.
                                                                                          6

      was dismissed as untimely filed. Id. The final decision stated that the appellant
      may appeal the matter to the Board within 30 calendar days. Id. at 6-7.
¶11         Following OPM’s final decision, on July 9, 2018, the appellant filed a
      petition for review, to which OPM has responded. PFR File, Tabs 3, 5. The
      appellant reiterates his claims on the merits of his annuity determination and
      additionally states that his request for reinstatement was delayed because he had
      to produce medical records from the VA, which was a circumstance beyond his
      control. PFR File, Tab 3 at 4-5. The appellant alternatively requests that his
      petition for review be considered an appeal from OPM’s final decision. Id. at 5.

                      DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶12         When OPM dismisses an individual’s request for reconsideration of an
      initial decision as untimely, the Board has jurisdiction over an app eal regarding
      the timeliness determination.       Kent v. Office of Personnel Management,
      123 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 7 (2015).       The Board will reverse a decision by OPM
      dismissing a reconsideration request on timeliness grounds only if it finds that the
      dismissal was unreasonable or an abuse of discretion.            Id.   If the Board
      determines that OPM’s timeliness determination was unreasonable or an abuse of
      discretion, Board jurisdiction then attaches to the merits of the appeal. Id.
¶13         Under both the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal
      Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), a request for reconsideration of an initial
      decision issued by OPM regarding retirement benefits generally must be r eceived
      by OPM within 30 calendar days from the date of the initial decision.             Id.;
      5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109(e)(1), 841.306(d)(1). 4 OPM’s regulations provide that OPM
      may extend the time limit when the individual shows either that (1) he was not

      4
        It is not clear from the record whether the appellant is covered under CSRS or FERS;
      however, this distinction is not relevant for purposes of our analysis here as the
      applicable regulatory standards governing the timeliness of reconsideration requests
      under CSRS and FERS are essentially identical. See Kent, 123 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 8 n.5
      (citing 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109(e), 841.306(d)).
                                                                                          7

      notified of the time limit and was not otherwise aware of it, or (2) he was
      prevented by circumstances beyond his control from making the re quest within
      the time limit.       Kent, 123 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 8; 5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109(e)(2),
      841.306(d)(2).        In relevant part, the regulations state that an “[OPM]
      representative . . . may extend the time limit.”            5 C.F.R. §§ 831.109(e)(2),
      841.306(d)(2). If an appellant shows that he qualified for an extension of the
      time limit under OPM’s regulations, the Board will then consider whether OPM
      acted unreasonably or abused its discretion in refusing to extend the time limit
      and dismissing his request for reconsideration as untimely filed.                Kent,
      123 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 8.
¶14           Here, 6 calendar days after his request for reconsideration was due, the
      appellant asked OPM for “extra time.” IAF, Tab 3 at 7-8. OPM responded that
      the request must be received by OPM “within 30 calendar days of the date of this
      letter.” 5   Id. at 6-7 (emphasis added).        Accordingly, we find that the OPM
      representative extended the time limit for the appellant to request reconsideration
      to 30 days after the May 3, 2017 email exchange, or June 2, 2017. Although
      OPM is aware of the timeliness issue on review, it has not addressed it. PFR File,
      Tab 5.       Instead, it argues that the appellant must file a new appeal of the
      reconsideration decision. PFR File, Tab 5 at 6. OPM is mistaken. The Board’s
      practice is to adjudicate an appeal that was premature when it was filed but
      becomes ripe while pending with the Board. Simnitt v. Department of Veterans
      Affairs, 113 M.S.P.R. 313, ¶ 9 (2010).
¶15           Our conclusion that OPM extended the appellant’s time to request
      reconsideration is further supported by the fact that a t no point throughout the
      appellant’s case, including in OPM’s responses to his Board appeal, did any
      representative from OPM reference that his original request for reconsideration
      was untimely.       Rather, the various OPM representatives continually sought to

      5
          The date of that “letter” was May 3, 2017. IAF, Tab 3 at 6.
                                                                                           8

      work with the appellant to compile the requisite information and documents
      necessary to make a final decision on the merits of his disability retirement
      annuity. IAF, Tab 3 at 6-9, 12-14. It was not until after the administrative judge
      issued the initial decision, and more than 1 year after OPM’s initial decision, that
      OPM    first   referenced   the   untimeliness   of   the   appellant’s   request   for
      reconsideration. PFR File, Tab 3 at 6-7.
¶16         Because the appellant filed his request for reconsideration within the
      extended time limit provided by OPM, the Board’s jurisdiction attaches to the
      merits of the appeal. Kent, 123 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 7. The Board will now consider
      the disability retirement eligibility issue de novo.        See Licausi v. Office of
      Personnel Management, 350 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the
      Board engages in de novo consideration of the [disability retirement] eligibility
      issue, it is not confined to either upholding OPM’s decision on the
      ground invoked by OPM or remanding to OPM for further proceedings.”);
      Ancheta v. Office of Personnel Management, 95 M.S.P.R. 343, ¶¶ 18-19 (2003)
      (finding under Licausi that it was unnecessary to remand a disability retirement
      appeal to OPM for a new reconsideration decision addressing the appellant’s
      ability to render useful and efficient service and instead remanding to the Board’s
      regional office for further proceedings). Thus, on remand, if the administrative
      judge “is persuaded that the employee has met his or her burden of showing
      entitlement to benefits, [he] will direct that benefits be awarded; otherwise, [he]
      will sustain the denial of benefits.” Licausi, 350 F.3d 1359, 1364.
                                                                                       9

                                          ORDER
¶17        For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the Western
      Regional Office for further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order.

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