Alford v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2009-3269
ANITA L. ALFORD,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Anita L. Alford, of Baltimore, Maryland, pro se.
Gregg M. Schwind, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With him on
the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director,
and Kirk T. Manhardt, Assistant Director. Of counsel were Allison Kidd-Miller, Trial
Attorney; and Wade M. Plunkett, 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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
2009-3269
ANITA L. ALFORD,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in PH844E080616-I-1.
__________________________
DECIDED: January 11, 2010
__________________________
Before GAJARSA, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Anita L. Alford (“Alford”) petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the denial of her application for disability
retirement benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System (“CSRS”). Alford v.
Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. PH844E080616-I-1 (M.S.P.B. June 24, 2008) (“Final
Decision”). Because the Board did not substantially depart from any important
procedural right, misconstrue governing legislation, or commit any like error going to the
heart of the administrative determination, we affirm.
Alford worked as a Claims Assistant for the Social Security Administration from
September 13, 1982 to February 15, 2007, when she was removed from her position. A
major portion of her duties as a Claims Assistant included typing. Shortly before her
removal, she filed an application for disability retirement benefits with the Office of
Personnel Management (“OPM”). She claimed that she was permanently disabled due
to arthritis, depression, anxiety, ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, sinus
problems, menstrual cramps, chronic bronchitis, dizziness, and a tumor. OPM denied
her application on January 14, 2008, finding that her medical conditions were not
disabling. She requested reconsideration and submitted a number of additional
documents. OPM denied the request for reconsideration on May 22, 2008, addressing
each of the documents she submitted and concluding that OPM’s initial decision was
correct.
She appealed OPM’s decision to the Board. After conducting a hearing, the
Board issued an initial decision in which it concluded that, although she suffers from
various medical conditions, those conditions are not disabling. Alford v. Office of Pers.
Mgmt., No. PH844E080616-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 15, 2009) (“Initial Decision”). She
petitioned the full Board to review the Initial Decision. The full Board denied the petition
for review because the petition did not establish error affecting her substantive rights.
However, the Board reopened the appeal on its own motion because the Initial Decision
adjudicated her case under the legal standard of the Federal Employees’ Retirement
System (“FERS”) rather than CSRS. Nevertheless, because the legal standard for
establishing a disabling condition is substantively identical under both FERS and CSRS,
the full Board affirmed the Initial Decision as modified. Final Decision at 4. This appeal
followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2006).
2009-3269 2
Our authority to review the Board’s decision is limited. “This court is without
authority to review the substantive merits of disability determinations, or the factual
underpinnings of such determinations.” Brunner v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 996 F.2d 290,
291 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Instead, “[t]his court’s review of disability-based actions is limited
to determining whether there has been a substantial departure from important
procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like error
going to the heart of the administrative determination.” Id. at 292 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Alford argues that the Board failed to consider “all the facts,” and generally
references “medical reports from all doctors.” Petr.’s Informal Br. ¶ 2. But she has not
identified any particular report that she believes the Board failed to consider. The Board
specifically reviewed the medical reports of Drs. Bousel, Roby, and Rosen. Initial
Decision at 4-7. These appear to be all of the medical reports that were submitted to
the OPM.
Alford also challenges the Board’s factual determination that her medical
conditions were not in fact disabling. We cannot address the Board’s factual
assessment of the extent of her disability as we are “without authority to review the
substantive merits of disability determinations, or the factual underpinnings of such
determinations.” Brunner, 996 F.2d at 291.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Board.
COSTS
No costs.
2009-3269 3