Court Opinion

ID: 9373714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 16:06:53.593916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:48.634003
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

     SHARON L. CROSS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                  Appellant,                         NY-844E-16-0220-I-1

                  v.

     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL                             DATE: May 10, 2022
       MANAGEMENT,
                   Agency.

                  THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Sharon L. Cross, Cooperstown, New York, pro se.

           Linnette Scott, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

                                           BEFORE

                               Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chair
                                 Tristan L. Leavitt, Member

                                     REMAND ORDER

¶1         The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has filed a petition for review
     of the initial decision, which dismissed this appeal without prejudice until either
     medical documentation demonstrated the appellant’s medical fitness or the
     appellant secured representation. For the reasons discussed below, we GRANT

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        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add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 Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,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

     OPM’s petition for review, AFFIRM the initial decision to the extent that it
     dismissed the appeal without prejudice for 120 days, VACATE the initial
     decision to the extent that it dismissed the appeal without prejudice beyond
     120 days, and REMAND the case to the field office for further adjudication in
     accordance with this Remand Order.
¶2        On August 30, 2012, the appellant filed the instant appeal challenging
     OPM’s reconsideration decision that disallowed her disability retirement
     application under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System. Cross v. Office of
     Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-844E-12-0269-I-1, Initial Appeal
     File, Tab 1.    At the appellant’s request, from January 24, 2013, through
     January 28, 2016, the administrative judge dismissed the matter without prejudice
     nine times to provide her an opportunity to obtain representation. 2 Cross v. Office
     of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket No. NY-844E-16-0220-I-1, Refiled
     Appeal File (RAF), Tab 1. The appeal was automatically refiled on April 28,
     2016. Id.
¶3        The appellant requested an additional dismissal without prejudice, stating
     that attorneys were looking into her case and that she needed more time to obtain
     representation. RAF, Tabs 3, 6. On July 13, 2016, she submitted a request for a
     120-day stay of proceedings, along with a three-sentence letter from her
     physician, asserting that she had been seriously ill and received advice from her
     physician that she should limit her activities for 120 days. RAF, Tab 14. The
     administrative judge denied her request. RAF, Tab 15. The appellant requested
     that the administrative judge reconsider this denial and sought an order staying
     any further proceedings until she was medically capable to proceed pro se or until
     she obtained representation. RAF, Tab 16 at 4.
¶4        On August 1, 2016, the administrative judge issued an initial decision
     dismissing the appeal without prejudice. RAF, Tab 18, Initial Decision (ID). She
     2
       These initial decisions can be found at MSPB Docket Nos. NY -844E-12-0269-I-1
     through NY-844E-12-0269-I-9.
                                                                                      3

     considered that the appellant’s medical condition would affect her ability to
     prosecute her appeal, but she found that there was no indication when the medical
     condition would end. ID at 3. She dismissed the appeal without prejudice to be
     refiled only when either medical documentation demonstrated that the appellant
     was medically fit to represent herself in the processing of her appeal or she
     obtained a representative. Id.
¶5         OPM has filed a petition for review, and the appellant has responded in
     opposition to the petition. Petition for Review File, Tabs 1 -2, 4.
¶6         The Board disfavors dismissals without prejudice that do not contain a
     specific refiling date, especially when, as here, there is no indication when the
     matter underlying the dismissal will be resolved. Argabright v. Department of
     Defense, 113 M.S.P.R. 152, ¶ 8 (2010). In this case, the administrative judge did
     not set a date certain for refiling the appeal but instead referred to an uncertain
     date when the appellant would be able to obtain representation, despite the fact
     that she had been unable to obtain representation for more than 3 years, or when
     she would be medically fit. ID at 3. Under these circumstances, we find that the
     administrative judge erred in dismissing the appeal without prejudice without
     setting a date certain for refiling the appeal.    Mojarro v. U.S. Postal Service,
     115 M.S.P.R. 433, ¶ 7 (2010).
¶7         When an administrative judge has erred by failing to set a date certain for
     refiling an appeal, the Board has modified the initial decision by setting a date
     certain for the refiling. See, e.g., Selig v. Department of the Army, 102 M.S.P.R.
     189, ¶ 8 (2006). The appellant requested a stay of proceedings for 120 days in
     July 2016.    RAF, Tab 14.       This is the only request that is supported by any
     medical documentation, albeit a brief three-sentence letter. Id. We find that it
     was appropriate for the administrative judge to grant this request. Because over
     120 days have passed both from the appellant’s request and from the initial
     decision, we find that it is now appropriate to remand the appeal to the field
     office for refiling.
                                                                                            4

¶8         On remand, if the appellant requests an additional dismissal without
     prejudice based upon her medical condition, the administrative judge should
     determine whether she identifies her condition and explains both why it prevents
     her from proceeding with her appeal and how long the condition might be
     expected to continue.     Argabright, 113 M.S.P.R. 152, ¶ 7.        The administrative
     judge also should provide OPM an opportunity to respond to any such arguments.
     Id.   The administrative judge also may consider whether the procedures for
     appointment of representation outlined in French v. Office of Personnel
     Management, 810 F.2d 1118, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (finding that, in a disability
     retirement appeal, the Board has authority to request pro bono representation for
     an appellant who asserts that he is mentally incompetent), are applicable to this
     appeal.

                                            ORDER
¶9         For the reasons discussed above, we remand this case to the field office for
     further adjudication in accordance with this Remand Order. 3

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

     3
       The case index in this appeal indicates that Tab 11 of the Refiled Appeal File contains
     a pleading filed by the appellant on May 25, 2016, entitled “Motion to Change Date of
     Status Conference.” However, the pleading is not contained in the file. RAF, Tab 11.
     On remand, the administrative judge shall ask the parties to submit the pleading so that
     it may be entered into the record.