Court Opinion

ID: 9948523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 16:02:02.533917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:03.820936
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2394    Document: 14     Page: 1   Filed: 03/07/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                MICHAEL G. MARTINEZ,
                      Petitioner

                             v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                        2023-2394
                  ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-844E-21-0160-I-1.
                 ______________________

                  Decided: March 7, 2024
                  ______________________

    MICHAEL GARY MARTINEZ, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     ERIC JOHN SINGLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
 Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
 ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN M.
 BOYNTON, ALBERT S. IAROSSI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.
                   ______________________

     Before DYK, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
Case: 23-2394    Document: 14     Page: 2    Filed: 03/07/2024

 2                                          MARTINEZ v. OPM

     Michael G. Martinez appeals a decision of the Merit
 Systems Protection Board (“board”) affirming the denial of
 his application for disability retirement benefits. For the
 reasons discussed below, we dismiss his appeal for lack of
 jurisdiction.
                       I. BACKGROUND
     In August 2006, Martinez suffered a work-related lum-
 bar injury while he was employed as a police officer with
 the U.S. Army. Appx. 2, 95–96. * Martinez was removed
 from his position because of “[m]isconduct” in September
 2008. Appx. 93. On March 25, 2012, the Social Security
 Administration (“SSA”) approved Martinez’s application
 for SSA disability benefits. Appx. 87.
     On December 9, 2019, Martinez reported for his first
 and only day of work as a Military Pay Technician with the
 Defense Finance and Accounting Service (“DFAS”). Appx.
 2, 26. During his first day, Martinez signed documents and
 was sworn in but did not otherwise perform any duties of
 his position. Appx. 2, 27, 76. Martinez resigned from his
 position effective December 10, 2019. Appx. 57, 76, 85.
     On December 18, 2019, Martinez filed an application
 with the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) seeking
 to obtain Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”)
 disability retirement benefits. Appx. 82–83. In his appli-
 cation, Martinez asserted that his medical conditions were
 “exacerbated by partaking in a full time work day sched-
 ule” and that he had been unable to sit or stand for an ex-
 tended period of time due to chronic pain. Appx. 82.
    On March 17, 2020, OPM issued an initial decision
 denying Martinez’s application, stating that he did not
 meet the criteria for disability retirement benefits because

     * “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed with the gov-
 ernment’s informal brief.
Case: 23-2394      Document: 14    Page: 3    Filed: 03/07/2024

 MARTINEZ v. OPM                                             3

 his medical conditions were present prior to the time he
 started work at DFAS. Appx. 71–72. OPM concluded,
 moreover, that Martinez had failed to show that his medi-
 cal conditions worsened during his one day of work at
 DFAS. Appx. 72. After OPM affirmed its initial decision,
 Appx. 75–78, Martinez appealed to the board.
     On July 8, 2021, an administrative judge affirmed
 OPM’s decision to deny Martinez’s application for FERS
 disability retirement benefits. See Appx. 1–11. The admin-
 istrative judge determined that Martinez “had a pre-exist-
 ing medical condition” and that he had “failed to
 demonstrate that, during his one day of employment with
 DFAS, his pre-existing condition worsened to the point
 that he was not able to perform the duties of the Military
 Payroll Technician position.” Appx. 10. The board subse-
 quently denied Martinez’s petition for review of the admin-
 istrative judge’s initial decision, stating that it found “it
 highly unlikely that [Martinez’s pre-existing medical] con-
 ditions were not disabling until he showed up for a single
 day of sedentary work on December 9, 2019.” Appx. 13.
 Martinez then filed a timely appeal with this court.
                        II. DISCUSSION
     Our jurisdiction to review board decisions is circum-
 scribed by statute. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Marino v. OPM,
 243 F.3d 1375, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We can set aside
 a decision of the board only if it is found to be: “(1) arbi-
 trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
 in accordance with the law; (2) obtained without proce-
 dures required by law, rule, or regulation having been fol-
 lowed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5
 U.S.C. § 7703(c); see Briggs v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 331 F.3d
 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
     This court’s authority to review board decisions is fur-
 ther restricted in cases involving FERS disability retire-
 ment benefits. See 5 U.S.C. § 8347(c); Lindahl v. OPM, 470
 U.S. 768, 791 (1985); Reilly v. OPM, 571 F.3d 1372, 1376
Case: 23-2394    Document: 14      Page: 4    Filed: 03/07/2024

 4                                           MARTINEZ v. OPM

 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In such cases, we are prohibited from re-
 viewing the “factual underpinnings” of a decision to deny
 an application for disability retirement benefits. Lindahl,
 470 U.S. at 791. We are, however, vested with authority
 “to determine whether there has been a substantial depar-
 ture from important procedural rights, a misconstruction
 of the governing legislation, or some like error going to the
 heart of the administrative determination.” Id. (citation
 and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Vanieken–
 Ryals v. OPM, 508 F.3d 1034, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (ex-
 plaining that this court “may only address the critical legal
 errors, if any, committed by the [board] in reviewing OPM’s
 decision”).
      On appeal, Martinez asserts that the report he submit-
 ted from his physician, Michael A. Velasquez, M.D., was
 sufficient to demonstrate that his pre-existing medical con-
 ditions worsened significantly during his employment with
 DFAS. Pet. Inf. Br. 2; Pet. Inf. Reply Br. 2–4. According to
 Martinez, “the board failed to fully consider the opinion of
 Dr. Velasquez when [it] concluded that [his] opinion was
 not persuasive in light of other evidence.” Pet. Inf. Reply
 Br. 2. In support, Martinez asserts that Velasquez’s report
 “clearly explain[ed]” how “the stress of basic daily work ac-
 tivities,” such as “sitting, standing, twisting, [and] walk-
 ing,” while he was employed at DFAS on December 9, 2019,
 “exacerbated [his] current diagnosed conditions to a severe
 level of bilateral pain, paresthesia, and weakness.” Pet.
 Inf. Reply Br. 4.
     The board, however, carefully considered the evidence
 in the record, including Velasquez’s report, but determined
 that it was insufficient to establish that Martinez “became
 disabled on December 9, 2019, or that his condition wors-
 ened while he was employed as a Military Payroll Techni-
 cian.” Appx. 10. In this regard, the board noted that
 Martinez had been diagnosed with lumbar radiculopathy,
 degenerative spondylosis, and lumbar strain prior to the
 time he began work at DFAS and that the SSA had
Case: 23-2394      Document: 14     Page: 5    Filed: 03/07/2024

 MARTINEZ v. OPM                                              5

 awarded him disability benefits after concluding that he
 became disabled on April 15, 2011. Appx. 7. Additionally,
 while the board acknowledged Velasquez’s medical report,
 it determined that it was “conclusory” and “fail[ed] to set
 forth any explanation or findings demonstrating how [Mar-
 tinez’s] specific activities on December 9, 2019, exacerbated
 his condition.” Appx. 10. We are without authority to re-
 view the board’s factual findings on physical disability
 questions or to reweigh the evidence it evaluated. See
 Vanieken–Ryals, 508 F.3d at 1040 (stating that “[g]iving
 little weight to specific evidence because of its individual
 failings, such as the lack of qualifications of the author of a
 particular medical report, is a factual analysis over which
 we have no jurisdiction to review”).
     Martinez, moreover, does not identify any “critical le-
 gal errors,” id. at 1038, committed by the board in review-
 ing OPM’s decision to deny his application for disability
 retirement benefits. See Reilly, 571 F.3d at 1377 (empha-
 sizing that “in the rare case where the petitioner alleges
 that the agency committed legal errors of sufficient gravity,
 we have jurisdiction to review the [b]oard’s decision”);
 Bracey v. OPM, 236 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (ex-
 plaining that this court can review whether the statutes
 and regulations related to disability retirement benefits
 have been properly construed). Nor does he point to any
 “substantial departure from important procedural rights,”
 Lindahl, 470 U.S. at 791 (citation and internal quotation
 marks omitted), in the board’s proceedings. Thus, because
 Martinez challenges only the factual underpinnings of the
 decision to deny his application for FERS disability retire-
 ment benefits, we lack jurisdiction over his appeal.
                       III. CONCLUSION
    Accordingly, the appeal from the decision of the Merit
 Systems Protection Board is dismissed.
                         DISMISSED