Court Opinion

ID: 9373745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:07:05.003972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.883777
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     STEVEN P. PIRKKALA,                             DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        AT-0752-15-0454-M-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,                          DATE: April 26, 2022
                 Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Steven P. Pirkkala, Pembroke Pines, Florida, pro se.

           Gail Elkins, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         This case is before the Board on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
     the Federal Circuit to consider whether medical evidence that the appellant
     submitted before the administrative judge established good cause for his delay in
     filing an appeal of his removal.         As discussed below, we have carefully

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     considered the appellant’s medical evidence and find that it is not sufficient to
     establish good cause for his delay in filing.

                                      BACKGROUND
¶2         On March 27, 2015, six years after the March 27, 2009 effective date of his
     removal from his position with the agency’s Bureau of Prisons, the appellant filed
     a Board appeal challenging his removal.         Pirkkala v. Department of Justice,
     MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-15-0454-I-1, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1, Tab 10
     at 123-27. The administrative judge issued an order notifying the appellant that
     his appeal appeared to be untimely filed and directing the appellant to submit
     evidence and argument establishing that good cause existed for his filing delay.
     IAF, Tab 6.      Thereafter, among other filings, the appellant submitted a
     considerable volume of medical evidence, which indicated that, at various points
     during the 5-year time period between February 11, 2009, and February 12, 2015,
     he received treatment for shoulder conditions, depression, anxiety, and
     post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). IAF, Tab 14 at 15-206.
¶3         The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal for
     lack of jurisdiction, without addressing whether the appeal was timely filed. IAF,
     Tab 15, Initial Decision. The appellant filed a petition for review of the initial
     decision.   Pirkkala v. Department of Justice, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-15-
     0454-I-1, Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3. On review, the Board afforded
     the appellant a second opportunity to submit evidence and argument on the issue
     of the timeliness of his appeal.      PFR File, Tab 7.     Specifically, the Board
     provided the appellant an opportunity to submit evidence covering the period
     from April 26, 2009, through March 27, 2015, the time period of his delay in
     filing. Id. The Board informed the appellant of his burden to show good cause
     for the delay in filing, including his burden if he was asserting that a medical
     condition might have affected his ability to timely file. Id. at 2-3. In response,
     among other things, the appellant submitted medical evidence, PFR File, Tabs 9,
                                                                                        3

     11, 14, including a September 12, 2012 letter from a psychiatrist, which stated
     that he began treating the appellant for extreme anxiety and depression on
     August 10, 2010, PFR File, Tab 11 at 8.
¶4         The Board found that it had jurisdiction over the appeal (thus reversing the
     administrative judge’s decision on this issue), but dismissed the appeal as
     untimely filed without good cause shown for the delay. Pirkkala v. Department
     of Justice, 123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶¶ 5-24 (2016).          The Board found that the
     appellant’s appeal was untimely filed by nearly 6 years; that the appellant
     established good cause for the filing delay for the majority of that time; but that
     he failed to demonstrate good cause for his filing delay during the 7-month period
     between August 27, 2009, and March 27, 2010.              Id., ¶¶ 14-24.    Citing a
     September 12, 2012 letter from the appellant’s psychiatrist, the Board found that
     the appellant began treatment for extreme anxiety and depression on August 10,
     2010, and that the appellant failed to show that these conditions affected his
     ability to file a Board appeal prior to that date. Id., ¶¶ 21-22; PFR File, Tab 11
     at 8. Finally, the Board found that the appellant did not “equate” his extreme
     anxiety and depression with his PTSD, which in any event, was under control
     based on evidence that he submitted in a previous disability retirement appeal
     before the Board. Pirkkala, 123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶¶ 21-22.
¶5         The appellant filed a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
     the Federal Circuit.   Notice of Appeal, Pirkkala v. Merit Systems Protection
     Board, No. 2016-2117 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2017). In his brief before the court,
     among other things, the appellant argued that the Board failed to consider medical
     evidence that he submitted before the administrative judge, reflecting that on
     several occasions between December 7, 2009, and February 9, 2010, the appellant
     was treated for depression and PTSD at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center
     (VAMC).       Corrected Brief for Petitioner at 5-6, 11, 21-23, Pirkkala,
     No. 2016-2117, 2016 WL 4542151, at *5-*6, *11, *21-*23. After reviewing the
     record, the Board agreed that it both erred in failing to consider this evidence, and
                                                                                              4

     in finding that the record reflected that the appellant did not begin treatment for
     extreme depression until August 10, 2010. Respondent’s Unopposed Motion to
     Vacate Decision in Part and for Remand at 5-6, Pirkkala, No. 2016-2117. For
     this reason, the Board requested that the court remand the case to the Board to
     make further findings regarding the timeliness issue, including, but not limited to,
     whether the appellant established that his ability to file his Board appeal was
     impaired by illnesses or medical conditions during the 7-month time period
     between August 27, 2009, and March 27, 2010. Id.
¶6         The court granted the Board’s motion and remanded this matter to the Board
     for further proceedings.          Pirkkala v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
     No. 2016-2117 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2017). On remand, we have focused on the
     evidence relevant to the time period from August 27, 2009, to March 27, 2010,
     identified in the Board’s motion to the court. 2 Respondent’s Unopposed Motion
     to Vacate Decision in Part and for Remand at 5-6, Pirkkala, No. 2016-2117.

                                           ANALYSIS
¶7         As noted, the agency removed the appellant effective March 27, 2009. IAF,
     Tab 10 at 123-27. He filed a grievance of the removal, which was ultimately
     resolved on August 27, 2009, when an arbitrator declined to act on it because the
     appellant’s union would not represent the appellant. IAF, Tab 11 at 10. The
     Board previously found good cause for the appellant’s failure to appeal his

     2
       On November 17, 2017, the appellant filed a pleading in which he sought confirmation
     that his appeal was still pending a decision on remand from the Federal Circuit and
     requested to submit a November 7, 2017 summary of benefits from the Department of
     Veterans Affairs. Pirkkala v. Department of Justice, MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-15-
     0454-M-1, Court Remand File, Tab 2. Even if the evidence the appellant has submitted
     is new, it is not relevant to the time period at issue and is not otherwise material to the
     outcome of this appeal. Id. at 4; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(k) (providing that, once the
     record closes on review, no additional evidence will be accepted unless it is new and
     material and was not readily available before the record closed) . Accordingly, the
     appellant’s request is denied.
                                                                                             5

     removal between April 27 3 and August 27, 2009, because the appellant was
     pursuing a grievance of his removal. Pirkkala, 123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 15.
¶8         At some point prior to March 27, 2010, the appellant applied for disability
     retirement benefits with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on the basis
     of his shoulder injury and PTSD. 4 Pirkkala v. Office of Personnel Management,
     MSPB Docket No. AT-844E-12-0029-I-3, Final Order, ¶ 2 (Feb. 20, 2015). The
     Board accepted the appellant’s assertion that he believed that his disability
     retirement application also constituted an appeal of his removal, finding the
     assertion supported by the fact that OPM based its denial of disability retirement
     benefits on his removal for cause and by the medical evidence showing that his
     anxiety and depression may have interfered with his ability to deal with more
     than one case at a time. See Pirkkala, 123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶¶ 17-18. Thus, the
     Board found that the appellant’s potential confusion caused by the OPM appeal
     established good cause for the period after March 27, 2010.               Id., ¶¶ 22-23.
     Therefore, the critical time period to determine whether the appellant’s appeal of
     his removal was timely filed is the 7-month period between August 27, 2009,
     when the arbitrator declined to act on the appellant’s challenge of his removal,

     3
       The Board’s regulations provide that an appeal must be filed with the Board no later
     than 30 days after the effective date of the agency’s action, or 30 days after the date of
     the appellant’s receipt of the agency’s decision, whichever is later.             5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.22(b)(1). The agency effected the removal on March 27, 2009. IAF, Tab 10
     at 23. To be timely, the appellant must have filed his appeal by April 27, 2009.
     4
       The records in the appellant’s appeals do not establish the exact date that he applied
     for disability retirement benefits. OPM’s regulations provide that an application for
     disability retirement must be filed within 1 year of an employee’s separation. 5 C.F.R.
     § 831.1204(a). Thus, the application must have been filed by March 27, 2010, a year
     after the appellant’s removal. IAF, Tab 10 at 123. The appellant acknowledges that he
     did not file his application for disability retirement for “many months after the
     grievance and August 2009 unfair Arbitration denial.” PFR File, Tab 10 at 7.
                                                                                         6

     and March 27, 2010, the last day on which the appellant could have filed for
     disability retirement benefits with OPM. 5
¶9           The Board will waive the time limit for filing an appeal if the appellant has
     shown good cause for the filing delay. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(c); see Smith v. Office
     of Personnel Management, 117 M.S.P.R. 527, ¶ 6 (2012). The burden is on the
     appellant to demonstrate excusable delay.       5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(i)(B); see
     Mendoza v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 966 F.2d 650, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
     (en banc).     In determining if an appellant has shown good cause, the Board
     considers the length of the delay, the reasonableness of the appellant’s excuse and
     any showing of due diligence, whether he is proceeding pro se, and whether he
     has presented evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond his control t hat
     affected his ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or
     misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to his inability to timely
     file.   Miller v. Department of the Army, 112 M.S.P.R. 689, ¶ 13 (2009); see
     Walls v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 29 F.3d 1578, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
     To establish that an untimely filing was the result of health issues, the party must:
     (1) identify the time period during which he suffered from the illness; (2) submit
     medical evidence showing that he suffered from the alleged illness during that
     time period; and (3) explain how the illness prevented him from timely filing his
     appeal or a request for an extension of time. Miller, 112 M.S.P.R. 689, ¶ 13;
     Lacy v. Department of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434, 437 (1998). As noted, the
     appellant was advised of these criteria in the Board’s show cause order. PFR
     File, Tab 7.

     5
       The appellant appealed OPM’s denial of his application for disability retirement
     benefits based on the fact that his former employing agency removed him for
     misconduct. Pirkkala, MSPB Docket No. AT-844E-12-0029-I-3, Final Order, ¶ 2. The
     Board reversed OPM’s decision and awarded the appellant disability retirement
     benefits, noting the removal for cause but finding that his s houlder condition was
     inconsistent with the requirements of his work environment in a prison. Id., ¶¶ 5, 14.
     However, the appellant’s shoulder condition is not an issue in determining whether he
     established good cause for untimely filing an appeal of his removal.
                                                                                             7

¶10         The medical evidence submitted by the appellant to the administrative judge
      established that his treatment for depression began at a VAMC on December 7,
      2009. IAF, Tab 14 at 200. The psychiatrist’s notes of that appointment reflect
      that the appellant reported depressed mood, loss of motivation and inter est, low
      concentration, and trouble sleeping. 6 Id. at 201.       According to the notes, the
      appellant “was never seen by a VAMC psychiatrist in the past [and] had been
      under the care of a private psychiatrist Dr. F.S. since less than a year ago.” Id.
      The appointment notes also state that Dr. F.S. “prescribed Pexeva and
      Clonazepam to treat symptoms of depression and PTSD, however [the appellant]
      ran out of them because he lost his insurance.”           Id.   The notes record the
      appellant’s score on a test for depression as indicative of severe depression. Id.
      at 204. The patient notes for subsequent psychiatric visits to the VAMC through
      March 31, 2010, observe that the appellant continued to suffer from depression;
      although the notes from a February 9, 2010 appointment reflect that, while the
      appellant continued to feel depressed, he “feels good” when he took Citalopram,
      the medication he had been prescribed, although it also made him tired.               Id.
      at 188-89.
¶11         As noted, the appellant commenced treatment at the VAMC on December 7,
      2009, and at some point prior to that was under the treatment of Dr. F.S.             Id.
      at 200-01.   There is no evidence in the record regarding precisely when the
      appellant saw Dr. F.S., his assessment of the appellant’s condition, or the extent
      to which it was controlled by treatment and medication, although the notes
      generated by the VAMC psychiatrist show that Dr. F.S. prescribed medication to

      6
        The VAMC medical records also mention that the appellant suffers from PTSD. IAF,
      Tab 14 at 203. The psychiatrist noted that, as of December 7. 2009, the appellant
      already was receiving needed treatment for that condition. Id. The psychiatrist’s
      statement is consistent with and supports the Board’s finding in the appellant’s removal
      appeal that his PTSD was under control. See Pirkkala, 123 M.S.P.R. 288, ¶ 17. Thus,
      it is not a significant factor in determining the existence of good cause in this appeal,
      and in any event, there is no medical evidence specifically addressing the dispositive
      time period.
                                                                                          8

      treat the appellant’s depression. Id. at 201. The record does reflect, however,
      that between March and August 2009, the appellant pursued a grievance of his
      removal and, when the union decided not to represent him at arbitration, he filed
      an unfair labor practice complaint against the union with the Federal Labor
      Relations Authority. 7 IAF, Tab 10 at 118, Tab 11 at 5-7, 11-12; PFR File, Tab 11
      at 4-5.
¶12         As set forth above, to establish good cause for an untimely filing based on a
      medical condition, an appellant must, among other things, submit medical
      evidence showing that he suffered from the condition during that time period in
      question. Miller, 112 M.S.P.R. 689, ¶ 13; Lacy, 78 M.S.P.R. at 437. Here, the
      evidence shows that the appellant suffered from significant depression in
      December 2009 and was previously treated for depression, but there is no medical
      evidence addressing the period from August 27, 2009, when the arbitrator
      informed the appellant that he would not hear his case, and December 7, 2009,
      when the appellant began treatment with VAMC. Moreover, as discussed above,
      immediately prior to the arbitrator’s withdrawal from the appellant’s case, the
      appellant engaged in litigation. There is no explanation in the record why the
      appellant was capable of pursuing his rights in those ways but soon thereafter was
      incapable of filing a Board appeal. Thus, after reviewing all of the evidence, we
      find that the appellant has failed to show that his medical condition prevented him
      from appealing his removal between August and December 2009.               See Lacy,
      78 M.S.P.R. at 437. We find that the appellant has not presented evidence of the
      existence of circumstances beyond his control that affected his ability to file or of
      unavoidable casualty or misfortune which similarly shows a causal relationship to
      his inability to file his Board appeal for the 3-month period of time between

      7
        In a settlement agreement before the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the union
      agreed to a posting that it would refrain from informing bargaining unit employees who
      were not members of the union that it would not take their grievances to arbitration.
      IAF, Tab 13 at 9.
                                                                                            9

      August and December 2009. Moreover, the medical evidence from February 9,
      2010, indicates that the appellant “feels good” when taking antidepressant
      medication and he has not explained why he could not file his appeal during that
      time. IAF, Tab 14 at 189.
¶13         In sum, we find that the appellant’s filing delay was significant and he has
      not shown good cause for the delay. Crook v. U.S. Postal Service, 108 M.S.P.R.
      553, ¶ 6 (finding a 1-month delay “significant”), aff’d, 301 F. App’x 982 (Fed.
      Cir. 2008); Alvarado v. Defense Commissary Agency, 88 M.S.P.R. 46, ¶¶ 4-5
      (2001) (concluding that a 2–month delay in filing an appeal was significant).
      Thus, we dismiss the appeal as untimely filed without good cause shown for the
      delay.

                               NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 8
               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

      8
        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.
                                                                                       10

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 rev iew 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 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
                                                                                11

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 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
                                                                                     12

      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
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 described 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. 9 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:

9
   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.
                                                                              13

                             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 war rants 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.