Court Opinion

ID: 9959261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 15:01:14.258975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:44.372693
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-2310   Document: 30     Page: 1   Filed: 04/11/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                 NICHELLE HAYNES,
                     Petitioner

                            v.

      OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
                    Respondent
              ______________________

                       2023-2310
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. AT-844E-21-0553-I-1.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: April 11, 2024
                 ______________________

    NICHELLE HAYNES, Phenix City, AL, pro se.

     ELIZABETH MARIE DURFEE PULLIN, Commercial Litiga-
 tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of
 Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented
 by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ALBERT S. IAROSSI, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

     Before CHEN, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-2310    Document: 30     Page: 2    Filed: 04/11/2024

 2                                            HAYNES v. OPM

 PER CURIAM.
     Nichelle Haynes appeals a decision of the Merit Sys-
 tems Protection Board (Board) that affirmed a decision by
 the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denying her
 application for disability retirement under the Federal Em-
 ployees’ Retirement System (FERS). For the reasons dis-
 cussed below, we affirm.
                          BACKGROUND
     Ms. Haynes worked for the Department of Veterans Af-
 fairs (VA) from December 13, 2015 until April 26, 2019 and
 from June 23, 2019 until her resignation, effective July 21,
 2020. At the time of her resignation, Ms. Haynes was an
 Advanced Medical Support Assistant with the Atlanta VA
 Health Care System. Her duties included “scheduling pa-
 tient appointments, tracking, reviewing, and responding to
 electronic orders, consults, and other elements in the elec-
 tronic medical record and medical systems.” Appx. 2–3 (in-
 ternal quotation marks and citation omitted). 1
     On September 5, 2020, Ms. Haynes applied for disabil-
 ity retirement under FERS based on the following condi-
 tions: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), military
 sexual trauma (MST), retinitis pigmentosa, disc degenera-
 tive disease, sinusitis, bursitis hip pain, and chronic left
 knee pain. In her application, Ms. Haynes asserted that
 her conditions prevented her from sitting or standing for
 long periods of time, impaired her vision, and caused trau-
 matic flashbacks.
     On April 23, 2021, OPM issued an initial decision deny-
 ing Ms. Haynes’s application, finding that she did not meet
 the criteria for entitlement to FERS disability retirement

     1 “Appx.” refers to the appendix filed with the govern-

 ment’s informal brief.
Case: 23-2310    Document: 30      Page: 3    Filed: 04/11/2024

 HAYNES v. OPM                                              3

 benefits. Ms. Haynes requested reconsideration of OPM’s
 initial decision, and OPM affirmed.
      Ms. Haynes then appealed to the Board. On November
 29, 2021, an administrative judge of the Board affirmed
 OPM’s decision. The administrative judge determined that
 Ms. Haynes had not shown that she more likely than not
 had a deficiency in her performance, conduct, or attend-
 ance due to a disability, as required to receive FERS bene-
 fits. The Board subsequently denied Ms. Haynes’s petition
 for review of the AJ’s initial decision.
     Ms. Haynes timely appealed to this court. We have ju-
 risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
      This court’s scope of review for Board decisions is lim-
 ited by statute. We must affirm the Board’s decision unless
 it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
 otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without
 procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been
 followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c); Briggs v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 331 F.3d
 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
      The scope of our review of Board decisions is further
 restricted in cases involving FERS disability retirement
 benefits. See 5 U.S.C. § 8461(d) (providing that OPM’s de-
 cisions on questions of disability and dependency “are final
 and conclusive and are not subject to review”). 2 In such

     2  The only exception to this rule appears in 5 U.S.C.
 § 8461(e)(2), which provides that a disability retirement
 decision of the Board based on the mental condition of an
 involuntarily retired employee (i.e., when the disability re-
 tirement application is made “by an agency” rather than
 the employee) is reviewed under 5 U.S.C. § 7703. Because
Case: 23-2310    Document: 30     Page: 4    Filed: 04/11/2024

 4                                            HAYNES v. OPM

 cases, we may not review “OPM’s factual findings and con-
 clusions on disability.” Anthony v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 58
 F.3d 620, 624–25 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that we may not
 review the Board’s factual findings that appellant had not
 proven that he was unable to perform the duties of his po-
 sition). We may, however, “address whether there has
 been a substantial departure from important procedural
 rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or
 some like error going to the heart of the administrative de-
 termination.” Id. at 626 (internal quotations marks omit-
 ted) (citing Lindahl v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768,
 791 (1985)).
     On appeal, Ms. Haynes contends that the Board did not
 properly account for the mental anguish she experienced in
 conjunction with her PTSD and MST, which were exacer-
 bated when she was physically assaulted on the job.
 Ms. Haynes asks this court to consider that she is a combat
 veteran with PTSD and alleges that she would not have
 resigned had she not been physically assaulted and emo-
 tionally abused on the job.
     While we are sympathetic to Ms. Haynes, these consti-
 tute the “factual findings and conclusions on disability”
 that we are prohibited from reviewing. Anthony, 58 F.3d
 at 625. Indeed, the Board considered the evidentiary rec-
 ord and concluded that Ms. Haynes’s evidence failed to
 show that her medical conditions caused deficiencies in her
 performance, attendance, or conduct. For example, the
 Board considered a letter and session notes from
 Ms. Haynes’s psychologist, the appellant’s 2020 perfor-
 mance appraisal, a written statement by the appellant’s
 supervisor, and other medical assessments in the record to
 conclude that Ms. Haynes failed to establish that her med-
 ical conditions were disabling for the purposes of FERS

 Ms. Haynes’s application for disability retirement was
 made voluntarily, this exception does not apply.
Case: 23-2310    Document: 30      Page: 5   Filed: 04/11/2024

 HAYNES v. OPM                                             5

 benefit entitlement. Because these are findings of fact that
 are outside the scope of our review, we cannot set aside the
 Board’s disability determinations.
     Furthermore,      although     we    have  considered
 Ms. Haynes’s other arguments regarding the Board’s con-
 clusion, we have identified no “procedural, legal or other
 fundamental error,” Anthony, 58 F.3d at 626, that would
 result in setting aside the Board’s decision.
                        CONCLUSION
    We have considered Ms. Haynes’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above,
 we affirm the Board’s decision.
                        AFFIRMED
                           COSTS
 No costs.