Court Opinion

ID: 9373741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:03.571876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:43.046086
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     CAMILLE M. CAESAR,                              DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-844E-17-0486-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: April 27, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Camille M. Caesar, Washington, D.C., pro se.

           Shawna Hopkins, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed the final decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
     dismissing her application for disability retirement as untimely filed. Generally,
     we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances:           the

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     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         Effective March 17, 2010, the appellant was removed from Federal service
     based on misconduct. 2 Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 6 at 50. On January 14,
     2015, the appellant applied for disability retirement benefits under the Federal
     Employees’ Retirement System (FERS).          Id. at 14.   By initial decision dated
     March 14, 2016, OPM dismissed the appellant’s disability retirement a pplication
     as untimely filed.    Id. at 14-15.    The appellant requested reconsideration of
     OPM’s decision, and on April 3, 2017, OPM issued a reconsideration decision
     affirming its initial decision on the grounds that the appellant did not timely file
     her application and did not show a basis on which to waive the filing deadline.
     Id. at 4-5.

     2
       Specifically, the Department of Commerce removed her from her position as a GS-15
     Attorney Advisor based on the following charges: (1) Causing the Alteration of an
     Official Document; (2) Lack of Candor; (3) Failure to Follow a Direct Order; and
     (4) Conduct Unbecoming a GS-15 Attorney Advisor. IAF, Tab 6 at 50.
                                                                                     3

¶3         The appellant timely appealed OPM’s reconsideration decision to the Board.
     IAF, Tab 1.    Following a hearing, the administrative judge affirmed OPM’s
     reconsideration decision. IAF, Tab 23, Initial Decision (ID). The administrative
     judge considered the appellant’s argument that, because of her medical condition,
     the agency should have provided her notice of the possibility of applying for
     disability retirement. ID at 5-6. He found, however, that the appellant’s medical
     condition did not cause the misconduct that formed the basis of her removal and
     thus the agency was under no regulatory or statutory obligation to provide her
     with such notice.    ID at 7.    As such, he found that the appellant filed her
     application almost 5 years after the statutory time limit expired. Id.
¶4         The appellant timely filed a petition for review in which she reasserts her
     argument that she was entitled to notice from her employing agency o f her
     eligibility for disability retirement and that the agency’s failure to provide her
     with such notice entitles her to equitable tolling of the time limit to file her
     application. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 16-17. OPM has filed a
     response. PFR File, Tab 3.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         An application for disability retirement under FERS must be filed with an
     employee’s employing agency before the employee separates from service or with
     the former employing agency or OPM within 1 year after the employee’s
     separation.   5 U.S.C. § 8453; King v. Office of Personnel Management,
     112 M.S.P.R. 522, ¶ 7 (2009); 5 C.F.R. § 844.201(a)(1). This 1-year time limit
     for filing a disability retirement application following an employee’s separation
     from service may be waived if the employee is mentally incompetent at the date
     of separation or within 1 year thereafter and if the application is filed with OPM
     within 1 year from the date the employee is restored to competency or is
     appointed a fiduciary, whichever is earlier.       King, 112 M.S.P.R. 522, ¶ 7;
     5 C.F.R. § 844.201(a)(4). Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 844.202(b)(1), when an agency
                                                                                          4

     removes an employee covered by FERS and “the removal is based on reasons
     apparently caused by a medical condition, the agency must advise the employee
     in writing of his or her possible eligibility for disability retirement and of the
     time limit for filing an application.”     The Board has held that the regulation
     requires the agency to act when it appears that the basis fo r the removal was
     caused by a medical condition, regardless of whether the removal was for
     disciplinary or other reasons. King, 112 M.S.P.R. 522, ¶ 13.
¶6         The appellant contends on review that she was entitled to notice of her
     possible eligibility for disability retirement, that her employing agency failed to
     give such notice, and that she is thus entitled to equitable tolling of the 1-year
     time limit for filing an application for disability retirement.     PFR File, Tab 1
     at 16-17.   The appellant cites to Winchester, a nonprecedential U.S. Court of
     Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision, and Johnson, a nonprecedential Board
     decision, for the proposition that she is entitled to equitable tolling . Id. at 21-23;
     see Winchester v. Office of Personnel Management, 449 F. App’x 936, 938 (Fed.
     Cir. 2011) 3; Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket
     No. CH-844E-14-0449-M-1, Remand Order (Sept. 2, 2016).
¶7         However, the administrative judge considered these two cases below and
     determined that they do not provide a basis for equitable tolling in the instant
     case. ID at 5. We agree. First, the administrative judge correctly noted that
     neither case constitutes binding precedent on the Board. See Hamilton v. Brown,
     39 F.3d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reminding counsel and lowe r courts that
     “nonprecedential opinions and orders . . . do not represent the considered view of
     the Federal Circuit regarding aspects of a particular case beyond the decision
     itself, and they are not intended to convey this court’s view of law applicable in

     3
       While the appellant in Winchester applied for disability retirement under the Civil
     Service Retirement System (CSRS), there is no substantive difference between the
     CSRS and FERS statutes or regulations as applicable to this appeal. Compare 5 U.S.C.
     § 8337(b), with 5 U.S.C. § 8453; compare 5 C.F.R. § 831.1205(b)(1), with 5 C.F.R.
     § 844.202(b)(1).
                                                                                       5

     other cases”); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c)(2) (explaining that nonprecedential orders
     are not binding and have no precedential authority); ID at 5.          Second, the
     administrative judge factually distinguished both cases from the instant appeal.
     ID at 5. In those cases, the employing agency removed the appellants for reasons
     connected to their respective medical conditions.       ID at 5; see Winchester,
     449 F. App’x at 937 (noting that the appellant was removed for reasons connected
     to his medical condition as extensively described in his removal notice);
     Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. CH-844E-14-
     0449-B-1, Initial Decision at 6 (Dec. 8, 2016) (finding that the agency had been
     provided information from the appellant’s medical providers that the absences
     that caused the agency to charge the appellant with, and propose his removal for,
     absence without leave were due to a medical condition).
¶8        Here, in contrast, the administrative judge found that there was not a
     connection between the appellant’s medical condition and the misconduct for
     which she was removed. ID at 5. The appellant alleges that the administrative
     judge erred in not referencing the medical evidence in the initial decision that she
     submitted below. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4, 18. However, the administrative judge
     acknowledged that the appellant provided a “great deal of documentary evidence
     regarding her medical condition.” ID at 5. Moreover, an administrative judge’s
     failure to mention all of the evidence of record does not mean that he did not
     consider it in reaching his decision. Marques v. Department of Health & Human
     Services, 22 M.S.P.R. 129, 132 (1984), aff’d, 776 F.2d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
     (Table). Accordingly, the appellant has provided no reason for disturbing the
     administrative judge’s well-reasoned finding that there was not a connection
     between the appellant’s medical condition and her removal . ID at 5.
¶9        The appellant also alleges that the administrative judge incorrectly found
     that, under 5 C.F.R. § 844.202(b)(1), she must show that she has a medical
     condition that served as a successful defense to her misconduct in an
     administrative hearing to be entitled to notice of eligibility for disability
                                                                                            6

      retirement. PFR File, Tab 1 at 4. The administrative judge did not make any
      such finding. Rather, the administrative judge referenced the appellant’s prior
      removal appeal to note that nothing in that appeal indicated that her medical
      condition caused the misconduct and            that, while she had a disability
      discrimination claim, she did not argue that her condition caused the misconduct.
      ID at 5-6.      Thus, contrary to the appellant’s assertions, he did not find that
      section 844.202(b)(1) requires a successful disability discrimination defense to a
      misconduct charge. PFR File, Tab 1 at 22; ID at 5-6.
¶10         The administrative judge correctly noted that, because the appellant’s
      removal was not based on reasons apparently caused by a medical condition, the
      employing agency was not required to provide her with notice of her potential
      eligibility for disability retirement and equitable principles need not be invoked
      to determine whether waiver of the statutory time limit is appropriate . ID at 6-7.
      Thus, OPM properly dismissed the appellant’s application for disability
      retirement as untimely filed. Accordingly, we affirm the administrative judge’s
      initial decision.

                                NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
             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 case s fall within their
      jurisdiction.    If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should

      4
        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.
                                                                                        7

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).
      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 partic ular
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.
                                                                                  8

      (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
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 secur ity. 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:
                                                                                      9

                            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 deliver y 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       Protectio n
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 descri bed 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. 5   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).

5
   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.
                                                                                10

      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.