Court Opinion

ID: 9373406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:04:48.385572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:42.017704
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DANNY J. NEESE,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        NY-0845-15-0316-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: September 21, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Danny J. Neese, Mastic, New York, pro se.

           Tanisha Elliott Evans, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed as modified a decision of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
     finding that the appellant was overpaid $8,299 in disability retirement benefits.

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     For the reasons set forth below, the appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED
     as untimely filed without good cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

                                         BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant filed an appeal of an OPM reconsideration decision finding
     that he had been overpaid annuity benefits in the amount of $8,299 as a result of
     his receipt of disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA).
     Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1 at 9-12. In its reconsideration decision, OPM
     found that the appellant was not entitled to a waiver of t he overpayment but
     reduced the repayment schedule to 165 monthly installments of $50 and one final
     installment of $49. Id. at 11-12.
¶3         After holding a telephonic hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial
     decision, affirming OPM’s reconsideration decision as modified to adjust the
     repayment schedule to $35 per month. IAF, Tab 15, Initial Decision (ID). She
     found that OPM proved the existence and amount of the overpayment. ID at 5-6.
     She also found that the appellant was not entitled to a waive r of the overpayment
     because, although he was without fault in creating the overpayment, OPM had
     advised him that his annuity must be reduced for any SSA disability benefits.
     ID at 6-10.   Thus, she found that the set-aside rule applied and the appellant
     failed to establish exceptional circumstances existed to warrant a waiver.         Id.
     However, she found that the appellant demonstrated financial hardship warranting
     an adjustment of the repayment schedule, and she reduced the repayment schedule
     to 237 payments of $35 per month and one final payment of $4. ID at 10-11.
¶4         The appellant has filed an untimely petition for review. Petition for Review
     (PFR) File, Tab 1. The agency has moved to dismiss the appellant’s petition for
     review as untimely. PFR File, Tab 4.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5         The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed
     within 35 days of the date of issuance of the initial decision or, if the party filing
                                                                                          3

     the petition shows that the initial decision was received mo re than 5 days after it
     was issued, within 30 days after the party received the initial decision. 5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.114(e). Here, the initial decision was issued on September 26, 2016, and
     the deadline for filing a petition for review was October 31, 2016. Thus, the
     appellant’s December 5, 2016 petition for review was 35 days untimely. 2
¶6         The Board will waive the time limit for filing a petition for review only
     upon a showing of good cause for the delay in filing. 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.113(d),
     1201.114(g). To establish good cause for the untimely filing, a party must show
     that he exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence under the particular
     circumstances of the case. Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R.
     180, 184 (1980).    To establish good cause based upon illness, the party must
     identify the time period during which he suffered from the illness, support his
     allegation with corroborating medical or other evidence, and explain how the
     illness prevented him from timely filing his petition or requesting an extension of
     time. Sanders v. Department of the Treasury, 88 M.S.P.R. 370, ¶ 7 (2001).
¶7         On review, the appellant explains that his petition for review was untimely
     due to many health issues he has been experiencing. PFR File, Tab 1 at 2. He
     also contends that he was in the emergency room due to psychological issues on
     June 20, September 12, and October 6, 2016, and provides medical statements
     documenting his visits on these dates. Id. at 2, 6, 8-9. However, it is unclear
     how the appellant’s emergency room visits on June 20 and September 12, 2016,
     impacted his ability to file his petition for review following the issuance of the
     initial decision on September 26, 2016. Further, the appellant has not adequately
     explained how his medical conditions prevented him from timely filing his
     petition for review prior to or following his October 6, 2016 emergency room
     visit. See, e.g., Miller v. Department of the Army, 112 M.S.P.R. 689, ¶ 15 (2009)
     (finding that the appellant failed to establish good cause for her untimely petition

     2
       The appellant does not contend that he received the initial decision more than 5 days
     after it was issued.
                                                                                               4

      for review when she provided evidence that she was examined at a hospital,
      recommended 4 days of bed rest, and out of work for a few days during the filing
      period but failed to explain her illness or how it prevented her from filing a
      timely petition for review).
¶8          In his motion to waive the time limit, the appellant asserts that he has been
      suffering from mental illness for several years. PFR File, Tab 5 at 2. He also
      attaches a copy of a December 6, 2016 report from a visit with his doctor ,
      identifying several medical conditions, including, among other things, anxiety,
      recurrent major depressive disorder, and insomnia. Id. at 4. The appellant has
      not explained, though, how any of these conditions prevented him from filing his
      petition for review, especially given that this report is dated 1 day after he filed
      his petition for review on December 5, 2016.
¶9          Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. Although
      we dismiss the petition as untimely, we acknowledge the appellant’s contention
      on review that the current repayment schedule will create severe financial
      hardship for him. PFR File, Tab 1 at 3. To the extent the appellant’s expenses
      prove overwhelming, he may submit a mid-collection request to OPM, at which
      time his living expenses may be reexamined.               IAF, Tab 5 at 111 (Policy
      Guidelines on the Disposition of Overpayments under the Civil Service
      Retirement System and Federal Employees’ Retirement System, § V.F.5).
¶10         This is the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding
      the timeliness of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final
      decision regarding the merits of this appeal. 3

      3
        The appellant is notified that OPM has advised the Board that it may seek recovery
      from the appellant’s estate or other responsible party of any debt remaining upon his or
      her death. A party responsible for any debt remaining upon an annuitant’s death may
      include an heir (spouse, child, or other) who derives a benefit from the annuitant’s
      Federal benefits, an heir or other person acting as the representative of his or her estate
      if, for example, the representative fails to pay the United States before paying the
      claims of other creditors in accordance with 31 U.S.C. § 3713(b), or transferees or
                                                                                          5

                           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 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).
      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:

distributers of the annuitant’s estate.   Pierotti v. Office of Personnel Management,
124 M.S.P.R. 103, ¶ 13 (2016).
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 indic ated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                    6

                              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
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.
                                                                                  7

      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
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),
                                                                                      8

(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).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Ap peals 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 f or 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.

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.
                                                                       9

     Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found a t 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.