Court Opinion

ID: 9395096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 06:00:13.391315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.386242
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     ROBERT M. MILLER,                               DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-0752-20-0790-I-1

                  v.

     FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE                       DATE: May 16, 2023
       CORPORATION,
                  Agency.

             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Robert M. Miller, Fairfax, Virginia, pro se.

           Aaron Wade Norman, Arlington, Virginia, for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

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

                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
     made the following findings: (1) the appellant is not entitled to corrective action
     in the individual right of action (IRA) appeal; and (2) in the indefinite suspension
     appeal, the agency properly imposed the indefinite suspension, the indefinite

     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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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 id entified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                        2

     suspension should have ended on April 8, 2021, and the appellant did not prove
     any of his affirmative defenses. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT the
     agency’s petition for review. We AFFIRM the administrative judge’s finding that
     the agency properly imposed the indefinite suspension and the appellant did not
     prove any of his affirmative defenses in the indefinite suspension appeal. We
     VACATE the administrative judge’s finding that the April 8, 2021 letter satisfied
     the condition subsequent and the agency should have ended the indefinite
     suspension on April 8, 2021. Instead, we FORWARD the claim involving the
     propriety of the continuation of the indefinite suspension to the Washington
     Regional Office for docketing as a new appeal and adjudication. We also DENY
     the appellant’s motion for interim relief. Except as expressly MODIFIED by this
     Final Order, we AFFIRM the initial decision.

                     DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
¶2        On review, the agency argues that the administrative judge erroneously
     concluded that it improperly continued the indefinite suspension after its receipt
     of the appellant’s physician’s April 8, 2021 letter.    Miller v. Federal Deposit
     Insurance Corporation, MSPB Docket No. DC-0752-20-0790-I-1, Initial Appeal
     File (IAF), Tab 55 at 5-6, Tab 65, Initial Decision (ID) at 30-32; Petition for
     Review (PFR) File, Tab 1 at 5, 11-13. 2 The agency asserts that it was error for
     the administrative judge to conclude that the letter was sufficient justification to
     return the appellant to work “despite obvious questions about the letter’s accuracy
     and reliability” and even though Federal Occupational Health (FOH) medical
     experts were still evaluating the adequacy of the medical documentation at the
     time of the hearing. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5, 16-18. The agency also asserts that the
     letter was produced after the deadline passed for submitting exhibits, and the
     letter itself was never introduced or otherwise accepted as an exhibit. Id. at 5,

     2
      Because the IRA appeal and indefinite suspension appeal were joined, IAF, Tab 22,
     we only cite to the 0790 matter.
                                                                                              3

     11-13.     Importantly, the agency argues that it was prejudiced by the
     administrative judge’s consideration of the April 8, 2021 letter, particularly after
     the administrative judge stated that the agency’s response to the letter was not
     relevant during the hearing.        Id. at 19.     The agency contends that, if the
     administrative judge changed her view about the relevance and admissibility of
     the letter and the agency’s responses thereto, she should have informed both
     parties that she wished to hear this evidence and give n both parties an opportunity
     to respond and ensure that the record was fully developed on this issue.                Id.
     Finally, the agency asserts that it has new evidence, in the form of a May 13,
     2021 letter from an FOH Occupational Medicine Consultant, which supports the
     need for an independent medical examination. Id. at 19-20, 29.

     We vacate the administrative judge’s finding in the indefinite suspension appeal
     that the appellant satisfied the condition subsequent and the agency should have
     ended the indefinite suspension on April 8, 2021. 3
¶3         The imposition of an indefinite suspension and the failure to terminate that
     suspension after the satisfaction of the condition subsequent 4 are “separately
     reviewable . . . action[s].” Rhodes v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 487 F.3d
     1377, 1381 (Fed Cir. 2007); Jones v. Department of the Army, 111 M.S.P.R. 350,
     ¶¶ 11-12 (2009). “An inquiry into the propriety of an agency’s imposition of an
     indefinite suspension looks only to facts relating to events prior to suspension
     that are proffered to support such an imposition. Facts and events that occur after
     the suspension has been imposed have no bearing on such an inquiry.” Rhodes,

     3
      Neither party challenged the initial decision’s findings regarding the IRA appeal; thus,
     only the suspension appeal is pending before the Board on petition for review.
     Additionally, neither party challenged the findings from the initial decision that: (1) the
     agency properly imposed the indefinite suspension; and (2) the appellant did not prove
     any of his affirmative defenses related to the imposition of the indefinite suspension.
     We affirm the administrative judge’s findings in this regard.
     4
       The parties do not challenge, and we discern no error with, the administrative judge’s
     finding that the indefinite suspension had an ascertainable end, i.e., a determination that
     the appellant was fit for duty. ID at 29.
                                                                                          4

     487 F.3d at 1380. Conversely, “[a]n inquiry into the propriety of an agency’s
     failure to terminate an indefinite suspension . . . look[s] to facts and events that
     occur after the suspension was imposed.” Id. Once a condition subsequent has
     occurred, “the agency must terminate the suspension withi n a reasonable amount
     of time.” Id. at 1380-81. Thus, “[t]he inquiry in such a case therefore looks to
     whether an identified condition subsequent has occurred after the suspension was
     imposed and whether the agency acted within a reasonable amount of tim e to
     terminate the suspension.” Id. at 1381.
¶4        The indefinite suspension appeal before us only involves the imposition of
     the indefinite suspension, not the continuation of the indefinite suspension
     following the agency’s receipt of the April 8, 2021 lett er. We could not find any
     indication in the record that the administrative judge advised the parties that the
     continuation of the indefinite suspension was an issue that she intended to
     adjudicate in addition to the imposition of the indefinite suspension . In fact, in
     the order and summary of telephonic prehearing conference, the administrative
     judge stated that “the parties will only be allowed to litigate the issues described
     [therein],” and nowhere did she indicate in that order that she would adjudica te
     the continuation of the indefinite suspension. IAF, Tab 56 at 1, 6. Moreover, the
     administrative judge’s statements during the hearing buttress the conclusion that
     the issue of the continuation of the indefinite suspension was not before her. In
     pertinent part, the agency attorney asked the administrative judge during the
     hearing if she wanted evidence about the agency’s decision after it receives FOH
     input. Hearing Transcript (HT) 1 at 248. The administrative judge stated that
     such evidence was “not relevant at this point because it’s not an action that’s
     occurred.” Id. The administrative judge acknowledged that “it might moot out
     the action down the road,” but it “ha[d] no bearing upon the case [that day].” Id.
¶5        Because the imposition of the indefinite suspension is the only issue before
     us in the indefinite suspension appeal, we conclude that the administrative judge
     erred when she sua sponte considered the April 8, 2021 letter in the initial
                                                                                           5

     decision, 5 decided that the letter satisfied the condition subsequent, and
     concluded that the agency should have terminated the indefinite suspension on
     this date. We therefore vacate the administrative judge’s findings in this regard.
     Because the parties are entitled to notice and an opportunity to pr esent evidence
     and argument on the propriety of the agency’s decision to continue the indefinite
     suspension, and any related affirmative defenses, we forward this claim to the
     Washington Regional Office for docketing as a new appeal and adjudication. 6

     We deny the motion for interim relief.
¶6         Because the appellant was the prevailing party below with respect to the
     continuation of the indefinite suspension, the initial decision should have
     contained a statement on interim relief. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.111(b). Because interim
     relief was not explicitly addressed in the initial decision, the appellant became
     entitled to interim relief by operation of statute. See 5 U.S.C. § 7701(b)(2)(A);
     Stewart v. Department of Transportation, 2023 MSPB 18, ¶ 10. The appellant
     raises this issue in a “Motion for Interim Relief,” which he filed after the close of
     the record on review. PFR File, Tab 5. However, a “Motion for Interim Relief”
     is not contemplated in the Board’s regulations. See Bryant v. Department of the
     Army, 2022 MSPB 1, ¶ 6 (“[T]he Board’s regulations do not allow for a petition
     for enforcement of an interim relief order.”). Nor did the appellant file a timely
     request for dismissal under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(d), which states that if an agency
     has not provided “required interim relief,” the appellant must file a request for
     dismissal of the agency’s petition for review within 25 days of the date of the

     5
      The agency correctly notes that the April 8, 2021 letter was not admitted into evidence
     during the hearing or at any time before the record closed, the administrative judge
     previously advised the parties that she would “not consider any exhibits that [were] not
     moved and/or entered into the record at the hearing,” and she never ruled on the
     appellant’s motions to supplement his hearing exhibits. HT 1 at 4; HT 2 at 4, 297; IAF,
     Tab 55, Tab 56 at 19-20, Tab 62.
     6
        We take no position on whether the April 8, 2021 letter satisfied the condition
     subsequent or whether the agency improperly continued the indefinite suspension after
     its receipt of this letter.
                                                                                         6

service of the agency’s petition. Furthermore, even if we were to construe this
filing as a challenge to the agency’s certification of compliance under 5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.116(b), we would decline to consider it on the basis that it was untimely
filed.    See Harding v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 115 M.S.P.R. 284, ¶ 9
(2010), aff’d, 451 F. App’x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 7 Likewise, to the extent that
this motion could be considered as a cross petition for review, we would decline
to consider it because it would be untimely under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e).

                          NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 8
         The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.        5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      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.

7
  We note that pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(g), if the initial decision granted the
appellant interim relief, but the appellant is not the prevailing party in the final Board
order disposing of a petition for review, and the appellant believes that the agency has
not provided full interim relief, the appellant may seek to file an enforcement petition
with the regional office under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182. Upon our issuance of this final
Board order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the regional office if
he still believes the agency has not provided full interim relief . 5 C.F.R. § 1201.116(g).
8
  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.
                                                                                          7

      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 cas e, 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:
                              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
                                                                                  8

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. 420 (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 secur ity.       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:
                                                                                      9

                            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), (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. 9 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).

9
   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.
                                                                                10

      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
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.