Court Opinion

ID: 9373695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:46.783545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.487165
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     TODD D. SMITH,                                  DOCKET NUMBER
                         Appellant,                  CH-844E-17-0289-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 16, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Robert R. McGill, Esquire, Walkersville, Maryland, for the appellant.

           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 reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management that
     denied his application for disability retirement under the Federal Employees’
     Retirement System (FERS). Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     the 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         On petition for review, the appellant makes the following arguments: the
     administrative judge applied the improper legal standard by individually
     evaluating his medical conditions instead of considering them in the aggregate ,
     violating Bruner v. Office of Personnel Management, 996 F.2d 290 (Fed. Cir.
     1993), and Henderson v. Office of Personnel Management, 117 M.S.P.R. 313
     (2012); the administrative judge failed to consider the medical report by the
     advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), violating Reilly v. Office of
     Personnel Management, 571 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and Vanieken-Ryals v.
     Office of Personnel Management, 508 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2007); the
     administrative judge placed undue reliance on the medical documentation by the
     primary care physician; the administrative judge ignored the testimony of himself
     and his wife; and his testimony proves that his medical conditions caused a
     deficiency in his performance and attendance. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 1.
¶3         After considering the appellant’s arguments on review and reviewing the
     record, we discern no reason to disturb the initial decision. In particular, we find
                                                                                        3

     that the administrative judge applied the correc t legal standard in finding that the
     appellant failed to show that his medical conditions caused a deficiency in his
     performance, attendance, or conduct, or that they were incompatible with useful
     and efficient service or retention in his position.     Initial Appeal File, Tab 13,
     Initial Decision (ID) at 8, 10; see Henderson, 117 M.S.P.R. 313, ¶ 16; see also
     Jackson v. Office of Personnel Management, 118 M.S.P.R. 6, ¶ 7 (2012); 5 C.F.R.
     § 844.103(a)(2).     We further find that the administrative judge properly
     considered the totality of the evidence, including the APRN’s medical report, the
     physician’s medical documentation, and the appellant’s subjective testimony, and
     we discern no reason to disturb the administrative judge’s weighing of the
     probative value of such evidence. ID at 3, 6-10; see Henderson, 117 M.S.P.R.
     313, ¶¶ 19-20. Therefore, we find that the administrative judge did not violate
     the legal authority cited by the appellant on review.
¶4           Although the administrative judge did not explicitly discuss the testimony
     of the appellant’s wife, 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).           Moreover, the
     appellant has failed to specify the content of his wife’s testimony and how the
     consideration of her testimony would have changed the outcome of this appeal.
     See Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984). In
     addition, we are not persuaded by the appellant’s conclusory argument that his
     testimony proves that his medical conditions caused a deficiency in his
     performance and attendance. PFR File, Tab 1 at 10-11. As properly noted by the
     administrative judge, the appellant continued to receive performance awards and
     step increases from when he allegedly became disabled in June 2013, until his
     resignation in July 2014, ID at 10, and his absence from work did not
     conclusively establish that he was incapable of performing efficient service, ID
     at 6.    Accordingly, we affirm the administrative judge’s conclusion that the
                                                                                      4

appellant has failed to meet his burden of proving an entitlement to disability
retirement under FERS. ID at 10.

                         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 caref ully 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.
                                                                                         5

      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. di strict 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 befor e
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
                                                                                  6

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

      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
                                                                                      7

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 l aw 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.
                                                                             8

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.