Court Opinion

ID: 9406558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-01 06:00:23.821105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.364597
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     BONNIE J. WILSON,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                    Appellant,                       SF-844E-18-0127-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: June 30, 2023
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Steven E. Brown, Esquire, Westlake Village, California, for the appellant.

           Albert Pete Alston, Jr., Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                                Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     affirmed a reconsideration decision of the Office of Personnel Management
     (OPM) finding her no longer eligible for continued disability retirement benefits
     under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS).                For the reasons

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     discussed below, we GRANT the appellant’s petition for review, VACATE the
     initial decision, and REMAND the case to OPM for a new reconsideration
     decision addressing whether the appellant’s medical co nditions, including heavy
     metal poisoning, entitle her to continued disability retire ment benefits.

                                       BACKGROUND
¶2         The appellant was formerly employed as a Tools & Parts Attendant at the
     Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9 at 24, 33. She was
     removed from Federal service effective December 15, 2009, due to an “inability
     to perform assigned duties for medical reasons.”        Id. at 32-33.   She filed an
     application for a disability retirement annuity under FERS. Id. at 24-27. In her
     Applicant’s Statement of Disability, she described her conditions as “permanent
     damage to [her] eyes and redness on [her] neck due to an exposure in the Tool
     Room,” an “achiness in [her] neck and elbow” which was impeding her ability to
     lift objects, and severe insomnia.           Id. at 21-22.     OPM has provided
     documentation, presumably submitted by the appellant, showing she was
     diagnosed with hypersomnia with sleep apnea, id. at 74, was suffering from a
     history of contact dermatitis and eczema in 2005, id. at 75 and 79, and as of 2009
     had high levels of bismuth, cadmium, lead, mercury, and tin in her urine,
     id. at 81-88, and dry eye syndrome, id. at 95-100.        On May 25, 2010, OPM
     approved the appellant’s FERS disability retirement application.        Id. at 37-39.
     OPM found the appellant “disabled due to multiple conditions” from h er previous
     position as a Tools & Parts Attendant. Id. at 40.
¶3         On June 16, 2016, OPM issued an initial decision determining that the
     appellant was not eligible for continued disability retirement payments because
     she had not shown that her medical condition still rendered her disabled.
     Id. at 57-58. The decision noted that the appellant had previously been found
     disabled “due to poison exposure of dangerous levels of chemicals and heavy
     metals causing significant systemic reactions.” Id. at 57. The appellant requested
                                                                                        3

     reconsideration from OPM and submitted additional medical documentation.
     Id. at 68-69.   OPM issued a reconsideration decision denying the appellant’s
     reconsideration request, and indicated that her medical evidence was insufficient
     to support continued disability retirement benefits for the accepted condition of
     eye and skin exposure. Id. at 7-8.
¶4        The appellant appealed OPM’s reconsideration decision, IAF, Tab 1, which
     the administrative judge affirmed, IAF, Tab 32, Initial Decision (ID) .
     The appellant timely filed a petition for review. Petition for Review (PFR) File,
     Tab 1. On review, she reasserts that she has a continuing disability caused by
     heavy metals, which has resulted in various conditions, and that OPM is “trying
     to get out of paying a severely disabled person” by incorrectly limiting her
     medical conditions to skin and eye irritation. PFR File, Tab 7 at 2 -3. OPM has
     responded to the petition and the appellant has replied. PFR File, Tabs 6 -7.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶5        Generally, the Board only has jurisdiction over retirement issues once they
     have been the subject of an OPM reconsideration decision, and the Board will not
     consider evidence relating to medical conditions unless they were presented to,
     and addressed by, OPM. Ott v. Office of Personnel Management, 120 M.S.P.R.
     453, ¶ 4 (2013); Ballenger v. Office of Personnel Management, 101 M.S.P.R. 138,
     ¶ 12 (2006).     However, when OPM fails to adjudicate all the claims and
     dispositive issues before it, the Board has jurisdiction to consider the
     non-adjudicated claims and issues, and may remand the case for OPM to complete
     a full review of the matter.    Ott, 120 M.S.P.R. 453, ¶ 4; Byrum v. Office of
     Personnel Management, 618 F.3d 1323, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
¶6        In Byrum, the appellant submitted an application to OPM indicating that she
     was claiming her mother’s FERS death benefits only in her capacity as her
     mother’s   “child”   on   her   death   benefits   application,   but   supplemental
     documentation to the application clearly indicated that she was a pplying also in
                                                                                         4

     her capacity as “assignee” of the benefits, pursuant to a court -ordered assignment
     executed by her mother’s spouse.       618 F.3d 1323, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
     OPM denied the appellant’s application without addressing whether the appellant
     was entitled to her mother’s FERS death benefits by way of the assignment.
     Id. at 1327-28. Because of OPM’s failure to address that issue, our re viewing
     court remanded the case for OPM to conduct a “full and complete review” of all
     of the claims in the appellant’s application. Id. at 1333.
¶7         In Ott, the appellant submitted a disability retirement application with a list
     of impairments. 120 M.S.P.R. 453, ¶ 2. Although not included on that list, the
     medical documentation submitted with the application also demonstrated the
     existence of permanent hearing loss.     Id.   OPM denied the application, at the
     initial and reconsideration levels, without making any findings as it related to
     hearing loss. Id. The Board found the case similar to Byrum in that, by failing to
     address the hearing loss, OPM effectively failed to adjudicate all of the claims in
     the appellant’s disability retirement application. Id., ¶ 6. As a result, the Board
     remanded the case to OPM for a new reconsideration decision addressing whether
     all of the medical conditions raised in the appellant’s application materials
     entitled her to disability retirement benefits. Id., ¶¶ 6, 9. The Board’s precedent
     in Byrum and Ott stand for the proposition that OPM must look beyond the four
     corners of a retirement application form to consider also an applicant’s supporting
     documents.
¶8         Here, similar to Byrum and Ott, OPM limited its reconsideration decision of
     the appellant’s eligibility for continuation of her disability retirement benefits to
     only some of the medical conditions in the appellant’s original Statement of
     Disability, specifically her eye and skin irritation “due to an exposure in the Tool
     Room.”     IAF, Tab 9 at 21-22.        However, the appellant listed additional
     conditions, such as insomnia, and provided supporting docu mentation of heavy
     metal exposure with her initial disability retirement application.      Id. at 81-88.
     Furthermore, OPM’s initial decision, from which the appellant requested
                                                                                        5

     reconsideration, explicitly stated that she had previously been found disabled
     “due to poison exposure of dangerous levels of chemicals and heavy metals
     causing significant systemic reactions.” Id. at 57.
¶9         In requesting reconsideration, the appellant provided updated medical
     documentation purportedly in support of her diagnosis of heavy metal poisoning,
     such as a December 2015 diagnosis of osteopenia, a January 2016 heavy metals
     panel, documentation for her January 2017 syncope and collapse, a February 20 17
     abnormal electro cardiology report, and documentation from emergency room
     visits in February and March 2017 related to tingling in her arms and legs.
     Id. at 88, 108-127.   However, OPM limited the scope of its reconsideration
     decision to the “eye and skin irritation” identified in the appellant’s initial
     application and did not consider the documentation related to the appellant’s
     other conditions. Id. at 7. By not addressing the heavy metal poisoning, which
     OPM had previously indicated was the basis for granting the appellant’s disability
     retirement application, id. at 57, OPM failed to adjudicate all of the issues
     necessary to determine the appellant’s eligibility for continued disability
     retirement payments. 2 Accordingly, as in Ott, we find that this case should be
     remanded to OPM to determine whether the appellant’s medical conditions,
     including heavy metal poisoning, entitle her to continued disability retirement
     benefits. 3

     2
       OPM provided a letter from its own contract medical doctor reflecting that he could
     not determine the conditions accepted by OPM, and recognizing that the appellant’s
     claim had been accepted for “exposure.” IAF, Tab 9 at 9. He then declined to consider
     this accepted basis for granting disability retirement because it was not a health
     condition.   Id.    Without more, this discussion appears overly circumscribed.
     Presumably, OPM is in the best position to identify to what it was referring when it
     approved the claim of “exposure.”
     3
       In light of our decision to remand this matter to OPM for a new reconsideration
     decision, we do not address the appellant’s remaining allegations of error by the
     administrative judge.
                                                                                            6

¶10         Further, although the appellant’s receipt of Social Security disability
      benefits is not dispositive of her eligibility for continued FERS disability
      retirement benefits, OPM must consider on remand whether her receipt of those
      benefits affects the appellant’s entitlement to FERS disability retirement benefits.
      See   Trevan    v.   Office    of   Personnel   Management,     69   F.3d   520,    526
      (Fed. Cir. 1995); IAF, Tab 26. OPM argues on review that the Social Security
      decision concerns a mental health condition with an onset date in 2015, and thus
      has no impact on the appellant’s claim. PFR File, Tab 6 at 11 -12. On this record,
      we are not persuaded.         First, the decision, which is incomplete, appears to
      attribute the appellant’s mental health condition, as least in part, to heavy metal
      exposure. IAF, Tab 26 at 2. Further, OPM submitted medical documentation that
      suggests the appellant’s mental health was at issue in her original disability
      retirement application. IAF, Tab 9 at 91-94. OPM may request documentation
      from the Social Security Administration to clarify any ambiguities in the
      decision. Trevan, 69 F.3d at 526.
¶11         On review, the appellant provided a July 9, 2018 note from her doctor
      stating that her disability of “neuropathy pain and debilitating chronic fatigue” is
      permanent and that she is not capable of carrying out gainful employment.
      PFR File, Tab 3.     On remand, OPM should consider this evidence given the
      nature of disability retirement cases and the high priority the Board has placed on
      resolving such cases on the merits. See Ott, 120 M.S.P.R. 453, ¶ 8 (citing these
      reasons in ordering OPM on remand to consider evidence relating to an
      appellant’s disability retirement application that she submitted for the first time
      with her petition for review). 4

      4
        On May 8, 2019, the appellant filed a motion to supplement the record with an
      additional pleading. PFR File, Tab 13. In light of our disposition in this matter, we
      find it unnecessary to rule on the appellant’s motion. The appellant ma y wish to submit
      her additional medical documentation to OPM for consideration on remand.
      See Ott, 120 M.S.P.R. 453, ¶ 8.
                                                                                        7

                                           ORDER
¶12        On remand, OPM shall issue a new reconsideration decision addressing
      whether the appellant’s medical conditions, including heavy metal poisoning,
      entitle her to continued disability retirement benefits. OPM shall issue the new
      reconsideration decision within 60 calendar days from the date of this Remand
      Order and shall advise the appellant of her right to file an appeal to the Western
      Regional Office if she disagrees with that new decision.      See Litzenberger v.
      Office of Personnel Management, 88 M.S.P.R. 419, 424 (2001).
¶13        We also ORDER OPM to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it
      believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has taken
      to carry out the Board’s Order. We ORDER the appellant to provide all necessary
      information OPM requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant,
      if not notified, should ask OPM about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).
¶14        No later than 30 days after OPM tells the appellant it has fully carried out
      the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the
      Western Regional Office if the appellant believes that OPM did not fully carry
      out the Board’s Order.    The petition should contain specific reasons why the
      appellant believes OPM has not fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should
      include the dates and results of any communications with OPM. See 5 C.F.R.
      § 1201.182(a).

      FOR THE BOARD:                                   /s/ for
                                               Jennifer Everling
                                               Acting Clerk of the Board
      Washington, D.C.