Note: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3002
JOHN L. COOK,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
John L. Cook, Jr., of Wetumpka, Alabama, pro se.
Jeffrey S. Pease, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on
the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson,
Director, and Harold D. Lester, Jr., Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3002
JOHN L. COOK,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: April 9, 2007
__________________________
Before RADER, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
John L. Cook, Jr., petitions for review of the final order of the Merit Systems
Protection Board (“Board”) sustaining the decision of the Office of Personnel
Management’s (“OPM”) denial of Mr. Cook’s request for disability retirement. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Cook was employed as a Motor Vehicle Operator with the Department of the
Army. He was removed from service on April 2, 2004. On March 29, 2005, he applied
to OPM for disability retirement. In his application, he listed a number of medical
conditions that, he claimed, caused him to be unable to perform the duties of his job.
OPM denied his application on July 18, 2005. Mr. Cook requested reconsideration and
OPM affirmed its initial denial of his application on October 20, 2005. OPM’s decision
letter informed him of his appeal rights.
Mr. Cook filed an appeal with the Board. In the initial decision, the administrative
judge affirmed OPM’s denial of Mr. Cook’s application. Cook v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
No. AT844E060133-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 6, 2006). The administrative judge found that
“[t]he evidence [was] simply insufficient to establish that [Mr. Cook] suffers from a
medical condition which prevented him from performing the essential functions of his
former official position.” Id., slip op. at 7. Mr. Cook petitioned for full board review of the
administrative judge’s decision. The Board denied the petition for review, making the
administrative judge’s initial decision the final decision of the Board. Cook v. Office of
Pers. Mgmt., No. AT844E060133-I-1, slip op. at 2 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 2, 2006). Mr. Cook
petitions this court for review of the Board’s final decision.
DISCUSSION
This court has jurisdiction to review a final decision of the Board under
28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9). When OPM denies a disability retirement application, and the Board
affirms, this court’s review is extremely limited. We cannot review the factual
underpinnings of a disability determination. Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
470 U.S.
768, 791 (1985); Anthony v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,
58 F.3d 620, 626 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Put another way, this court cannot review the evidence in this case to determine
whether the Board’s decision was correct. Our review is limited to determining “whether
there has been a substantial departure from important procedural rights, a
2007-3002 2
misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like error ‘going to the heart of the
administrative determination.’” Lindahl,
470 U.S. at 791 (citation omitted).
In this case, the Board found that there was not enough evidence to establish
that Mr. Cook’s medical conditions prevented him from doing his job as a Motor Vehicle
Operator. In his brief to this court, Mr. Cook argues that he has multiple, uncontrolled
health conditions and that he is requesting disability retirement benefits for his health
conditions. We believe that Mr. Cook’s arguments relate to the Board’s factual
determination that there was not enough evidence that Mr. Cook’s medical conditions
prevented him from doing his job. But, under Lindahl, we cannot review the evidence in
this case to determine whether the Board’s decision was correct. See Smith v. Office of
Pers. Mgmt.,
784 F.2d 397, 400 (“The sufficiency of the evidentiary support for the
Board’s decision ordinarily would not be viewed as a question of procedural rights or
construction of legislation, or analogous or comparable to those questions.”). For this
reason, we affirm the decision of the Board.
No costs.
2007-3002 3
