Wall v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3205
WAYNE C. WALL,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Wayne C. Wall, of Jackson, Mississippi, pro se.
Leslie Cayer Ohta, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on
the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director,
and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Wade M. Plunkett, Office
of General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, of Washington, DC.
Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3205
WAYNE C. WALL,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in AT0831080779-I-1.
__________________________
DECIDED: October 13, 2009
__________________________
Before LOURIE, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.
Wayne C. Wall (“Wall”) petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“Board”), dated April 17, 2009, which affirmed the denial of
Wall’s application for disability retirement. Wall v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 111 M.S.P.R.
122 (2009). In reaching that decision, the Board gave no weight to Wall’s post-
termination medical evidence, citing Reilly v. Office of Personnel Management, 108
M.S.P.R. 360 (2008).
On July 15, 2009, we vacated the Reilly decision, holding that the categorical
rejection of all medical evidence not based on tests or examinations conducted during
the petitioner’s employment was an erroneous legal standard. Reilly v. Office of Pers.
Mgmt., 571 F.3d 1372, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that the Board’s standard
constitutes “a substantial departure from important procedural rights and goes to the
heart of the administrative determination”). In the present case, because the Board’s
categorical rejection of Wall’s post-termination medical evidence is improper under our
recent decision in Reilly, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for
reconsideration under the correct legal standard.
VACATED and REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
2009-3205 2