Court Opinion

ID: 9373641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:22.688395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.048293
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CARRIE A. TAYLOR,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                         DA-844E-21-0056-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                              DATE: June 15, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Cody Carmichael, Esquire, and Ryan Aubrey, Esquire, Dallas, Texas, for
             the appellant.

           Jo Bell, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review
     of the initial decision, which reversed its reconsideration decision denying the
     appellant’s application for disability retirement benefits under the Federal

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     Employees’ Retirement System.       On petition for review, OPM argues that the
     appellant failed to establish that her medical condition s were disabling and
     expected to continue for at least 1 year from the date of her disability retirement
     application.   OPM also argues that the provided accommodation of full-time
     telework allowed the appellant to adequately manage her migraine condition .
     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 initi al 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.
¶2         Regarding OPM’s argument that the Department of Veterans Affairs
     assessed the appellant’s Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and found that it
     was not disabling, the records OPM cites are merely a diagnostic examination
     summary and questionnaire and do not make any specific findings concerning
     whether the appellant’s PTSD condition was disabling.          Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 6-7; see Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 13 at 36-65. The
     administrative judge ultimately concluded that the provided medical evidence
     along with the appellant’s subjective evidence of disability demonstrated that her
     PTSD condition is disabling and incompatible with useful and efficient service or
     retention in her Veterans Service Representative position, and we see no reason to
     disturb that finding on review. See IAF, Tab 22, Initial Decision (ID) at 6-10.
                                                                                         3

¶3        Regarding OPM’s argument that the administrative judge improperly relied
     on an independent medical examination that postdated the appellant’s disability
     retirement application, as the administrative judge correctly noted, medical
     evidence that postdates a disability retirement applicant’s separa tion may
     nevertheless be probative of prior disability where there is a proximity in time or
     other evidence that establishes a link to the relevant time period, as is the case
     here. Reilly v. Office of Personnel Management, 571 F.3d 1372, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
     2009); see ID at 9-10; IAF, Tab 13 at 4-7. There is also no merit to OPM’s
     assertion that the appellant’s conditions are not expected to contin ue for at least
     1 year from the date of her disability retirement application.    PFR File, Tab 1
     at 6-7. As the administrative judge observed, the appellant filed for disability
     retirement in August 2019, and two of her physicians recommended against her
     continued employment at her former agency due to the effect it was having on her
     conditions in May 2020 and October 2020—more than 1 year after the date of the
     appellant’s disability retirement application. See ID at 11; IAF, Tab 13 at 7-8.
¶4        Finally, we also find no error in the administrative judge’s finding that
     accommodation of the appellant’s conditions was unreasonable. See ID at 11-12.
     As the administrative judge observed, the provided accommodation of full -time
     telework was ineffective because it did not change the nature of the appellant’s
     job duties that triggered her PTSD and did not change the fact that she frequently
     had to take time off work when she suffered from a migraine attack.                See
     ID at 11-12; IAF, Tab 14 at 56-61.       Additionally, OPM has not offered any
     evidence to support its bare assertion that the full -time telework accommodation
     permitted the appellant to manage her migraine condition, and the record belies
     that assertion. PFR File, Tab 1 at 8; see IAF, Tab 20 at 17-20 (appellant’s sworn
     affidavit stating that her migraines occur “at least once a week,” and often more
     frequently than that, and that they last “for around four to six hours, if not
     longer,” during which she cannot perform her job duties); Tab 13 at 7
                                                                                         4

     (medical opinion findings from the appellant’s physician reflecting the same);
     Tab 14 at 67-69.
¶5         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).
¶6         We ORDER OPM to grant the appellant’s application for disability
     retirement benefits. OPM must complete this action no later than 20 days after
     the date of this decision.
¶7         We also ORDER OPM to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it
     believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has taken
     to carry out the Board’s Order. We ORDER the appellant to provide all necessary
     information OPM requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant,
     if not notified, should ask OPM about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶8         No later than 30 days after OPM tells the appellant it has fully carri ed out
     the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the
     office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that
     OPM did not fully carry out the Board’s Order.         The petition should contain
     specific reasons why the appellant believes OPM has not fully carried out the
     Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications
     with OPM. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

                      NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                            YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST
                           ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
           You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney
     fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at title 5 of
     the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The
     regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If
     you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees
     and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
                                                                                      5

You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued
the initial decision on your appeal.

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
      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
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).

2
  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.
                                                                                        6

      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 attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (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. ____ , 137 S. Ct. 1975 (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
                                                                                  7

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:
                            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
                                                                                      8

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 describe d 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. 3 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).
      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

3
   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 review 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. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             9

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.