Court Opinion

ID: 9373599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:06.575185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.041843
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     DEBORA A. DAVIS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         AT-844E-21-0191-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: July 7, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Debora A. Davis, Archer, Florida, pro se.

           Jo Bell, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     reversed the agency’s reconsideration decision finding that the appellant was not
     entitled to disability retirement benefits under the Federal Employees’ Retirement
     System (FERS).      Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in 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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     following circumstances:     the 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).
¶2         An appellant bears the burden of proving her entitlement to retirement
     benefits by a preponderance of the evidence. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56(b)(2)(ii). To be
     eligible for disability retirement benefits under FERS, an applicant must show the
     following: (1) she completed at least 18 months of creditable civilian service;
     (2) while employed in a position subject to FERS, she became disabled because
     of a medical condition, resulting in a deficiency in performance, conduct or
     attendance, or, if there is no such deficiency, the disabling medical condition is
     incompatible with either useful and efficient service or retention in the position;
     (3) the disabling medical condition is expected to continue for at least 1 year from
     the date that the application for disability retirement benefi ts was filed;
     (4) accommodation of the disabling medical condition in the position held
     must be unreasonable; and (5) she did not decline a reasonable offer of
     reassignment to a vacant position. 5 U.S.C. § 8451(a); 5 C.F.R. § 844.103(a); see
     Thorne v. Office of Personnel Management, 105 M.S.P.R. 171, ¶ 5 (2007).
¶3         Here, the agency challenges the administrative judge’s conclusion that the
     appellant satisfied the second criterion. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1
                                                                                       3

     at 6-7. To this end, the agency seemingly contends that the administrative judge
     erred in finding that the appellant had a disabling medical condition that was
     incompatible with either useful and efficient service or retention in her position
     because she failed to show that her pain levels could not be controlled.         Id.
     Specifically, the agency asserts that one of the appellant’s physicians “testified
     that there are options available to the appellant that ha[ve] not been utilized,” to
     include botox injections for her migraines and “other procedures that are
     available to the appellant if her pain and discomfort” continue. Id. at 7. We find
     these contentions unavailing.
¶4         An applicant for disability retirement benefits must establish the extent to
     which her disability can or cannot be controlled. Smedley v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 108 M.S.P.R. 31, ¶ 23 (2008). The Board has repeatedly held that
     the voluntary refusal to accept facially reasonable treatment, standing alone, will
     bar entitlement to disability retirement benefits.   Id.; see Shanoff v. Office of
     Personnel Management, 103 M.S.P.R. 549, ¶ 9 (2006) (explaining that, when an
     employee is unable to render useful and efficient service because the employee
     fails or refuses to follow or accept normal treatment, the employee’s disability
     flows not from the disease or injury itself but from the refusal to take the
     available corrective or ameliorative action).
¶5         Here, although one of the appellant’s treating physicians testified generally
     as to botox “potentially” being a treatment option down the line for the
     appellant’s migraines, he never indicated that he had recommended that she
     undergo such injections. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 26, Hearing Recording,
     part 2 (testimony of the appellant’s physician). In fact, he explained that he did
     not know whether they would be an effective method of treating her migraines.
     Id.   Moreover, he explained that botox injections would not address the
     appellant’s neck and back pain. Id. Similarly, although the physician testified as
     to the possibility of the appellant undergoing other procedures down the line, to
     include additional surgical joint fusion(s), he did not indicate that he had of yet
                                                                                         4

     recommended such procedures; indeed, he acknowledged that such procedures
     may or may not be an effective means of reducing her pain levels. Id. In short,
     the record was devoid of any indication that the appellant had refused any
     recommended medical treatment.        To the contrary, as set forth in the initial
     decision, the record showed that she “sought reasonable treatment,” but, despite
     her efforts, her conditions progressed to a point that treatment became ineffective
     in relieving the pain that she experiences as a result of performing her job duties .
     IAF, Tab 27, Initial Decision (ID) at 9. Indeed, the administrative judge found
     that the medical evidence in the record supported the appellant’s testimony that
     she has undergone “various treatments over the years to address her conditions,
     including surgeries, traction, [transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation], and
     multiple accommodations and medications”; nonetheless, her pain has persisted
     and is exacerbated by her job functions.          ID at 8-9 & n.3; see Haebe v.
     Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the
     Board must give deference to an administrative judge’s credibility determinations
     when they are based, explicitly or implicitly, on the observation of the demeanor
     of witnesses testifying at a hearing).     Thus, the agency’s contention does not
     provide a basis to disturb the administrative judge’s conclusion that the appellant
     satisfied the second criterion. ID at 9.
¶6         The agency also challenges the administrative judge’s conclusion that the
     appellant satisfied the third criterion, i.e., that her disabling medical condition is
     expected to continue for at least 1 year from the date on which she filed her
     application for disability retirement.     PFR File, Tab 1 at 6-7.      The agency,
     however, does not provide any specific argument in this regard.            Here, the
     administrative judge found credible the testifying physician, a pain management
     specialist, who explained that “there was no current cure for the appellant’s
     conditions,” which are ongoing and progressively worsening. ID at 9; see Haebe,
     288 F.3d at 1301. We discern no basis to disturb this finding; indeed, medical
     documentation in the record substantiated the physician’s testimony. E.g., IAF,
                                                                                           5

     Tab 14 at 41-44. Thus, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that
     the appellant satisfied the third criterion.
¶7         Accordingly, we affirm the initial decision.

                              NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 2
           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).

     2
       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.
                                                                                         6

      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
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
                                                                                  7

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 respe ctive
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
                                                                                      8

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. 3 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:
                               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

3
   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

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.