Court Opinion

ID: 9441056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 17:17:28.826901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:04.134440
License: Public Domain

MAYER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because 5 U.S.C. § 8470(b) is not ambiguous, and the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) has incorrectly interpreted it, I dissent from the majority’s contrary view.
Section 8470(b) provides, “Recovery of payments ... may not be made from an individual when, in the judgment of the Office, the individual is without fault and recovery would be against equity and good conscience.” Under OPM’s interpretation of the statute, a determination about fault and equity occurs only upon a waiver request or at its discretion. See Ante at 1377-78. Accordingly, it invariably does not make a determination respecting some individuals who are in fact without fault and from whom recovery is against equity and good conscience, and recovers from them. The statute explicitly provides, however, that recovery may not be had under these circumstances. The only way to prevent such recovery, and thereby give meaning to Congress’ intent, is for OPM to automatically make a determination of fault and equity whenever recovery is sought. See Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2006) (setting forth our analysis under the Chevron framework). Accordingly, I would send the case back to OPM so it can conduct the inquiry of fault and equity mandated by section 8470(b).