Stanley v. Office of Personnel Management

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-3334
DONALD G. STANLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
Donald G. Stanley, of Wichita, Kansas, pro se.
Lauren S. Moore, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on
the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director,
and Franklin E. White, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel was Joseph A. Pixley.
Appealed from: United States Merit Systems Protection Board
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-3334
DONALD G. STANLEY,
Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent.
__________________________
DECIDED: January 30, 2007
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, RADER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Donald G. Stanley petitions for review of the decision of the Merit Systems
Protection Board, Docket No. DE844E060065-I-1, affirming the reconsideration decision of
the Office of Personnel Management that he is not entitled to a disability retirement annuity
under the Federal Employees' Retirement System. We affirm the decision of the Board.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Stanley was removed from his position of Distribution Clerk with the United
States Postal Service in Wichita, Kansas, for stealing prescription medication from the
mails. Mr. Stanley then applied to OPM for a disability retirement annuity, alleging that he
could not perform the duties of his position because of a separated shoulder, carpal tunnel
syndrome, lumbar fusion, arthritis, glaucoma, pins broken in his hip due to surgical repair,
and a broken ankle that had failed to heal properly. OPM denied the application. Mr.
Stanley appealed to the Board, which found that he had not shown that he was disabled at
the time of his removal for misconduct. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
To establish eligibility for a FERS disability retirement annuity Mr. Stanley had to
demonstrate, inter alia, that he was unable, because of disease or injury, to render useful
and efficient service in the position he last occupied, and that he could not have been
reasonably accommodated or reassigned by his agency. See 5 U.S.C. §8451(a)(1)(B); 5
C.F.R. §844.103. The Board reviewed the medical evidence of record as well as the
testimony of the witnesses, and concluded that Mr. Stanley had not established entitlement
to an annuity based on disability.
Mr. Stanley challenges these findings, stating that the Board failed to take into
account the effect of his medications on his ability to do his job. He states, "The FACT that
was incorrectly decided is that absent the abuse of the medications, I was completely
unable to function in my Postal duties." Mr. Stanley states that the Board gave inadequate
weight to the effect that his medication abuse had on his disability.
2006-3334 2
The Federal Circuit is precluded from reviewing the factual determinations that
underlie disability determinations, except for matters of law or procedure that affect
fundamental principles. In Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U.S. 768, 791
(1985), the Supreme Court held that "while the factual underpinnings of §8347 disability
determinations may not be judicially reviewed, such review is available to determine
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 791 (quoting Scroggins v. United States, 397 F.2d
295, 297 (Ct. Cl. 1968)). The Lindahl standard applies to FERS disability cases. See
Anthony v. Office of Personnel Management, 58 F.3d 620, 626 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("[T]his
court is precluded by 5 U.S.C. §8461(d) from reviewing the factual underpinnings of
physical disability determinations, but may address 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."'") (quoting
Lindahl).
Mr. Stanley's allegations relate solely to factual findings asserted to have been made
in error by OPM and the Board in evaluating his disability claim. These findings are not
within the scope of review permitted by Lindahl and ensuing precedent. On this basis, the
decision of the Board must be affirmed.
No costs.
2006-3334 3