Johnson v. Office of Personnel Management
664 F. App'x 919
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Brenda Johnson worked in federal service until resigning on May 5, 1990, and withdrew her retirement contributions after leaving.
- In July–August 2014 Johnson submitted a Statement of Disability and then the required SF-2801 to OPM, claiming a 1984 work-related wrist injury.
- OPM notified Johnson that disability retirement applications must be filed before separation or within one year after separation (5 U.S.C. § 8337(b)), and dismissed her 2014 application as untimely.
- Johnson requested reconsideration and supplied medical records; OPM denied reconsideration for untimeliness. She appealed to the MSPB, which affirmed the denial.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed the MSPB’s affirmance and held Johnson’s application was untimely because it was filed 23 years after separation and she failed to present evidence of mental incompetence at separation or within one year thereafter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Johnson’s disability retirement application timely under 5 U.S.C. § 8337(b)? | Johnson argued her 2014 application should be accepted despite late filing (pointing to medical evidence). | OPM argued the statute requires filing by May 5, 1991 (one year after separation); Johnson’s 2014 filing is untimely. | The court held the application was untimely; statutory deadline was May 5, 1991. |
| Did Johnson qualify for a waiver due to mental incompetence at separation or within one year after separation? | Johnson suggested mental incapacity but provided no substantiating evidence. | OPM and MSPB argued there was no evidence showing incompetence during the relevant period. | The court held Johnson did not show mental incompetence during the required period, so no waiver. |
| Are other legal theories (FECA, MMI medical guidelines, California law) grounds to overturn the denial? | Johnson asserted violations of FECA, MMI requirements, and California law to support her claim. | OPM argued FECA decisions are nonreviewable, MMI or state law cannot override federal filing rules. | The court rejected these arguments: FECA claims are nonreviewable; MMI/state law do not override § 8337(b). |
| Was the MSPB’s decision arbitrary, unsupported by substantial evidence, or legally incorrect? | Johnson contended various errors and raised additional assertions in briefing. | MSPB maintained its factual findings and legal application were correct. | The court found the MSPB’s decision supported by the record and affirmed it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Welshans v. U.S. Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard of review for MSPB legal conclusions)
- Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unsubstantiated assertions/speculation do not constitute substantial evidence)
- LaRochelle v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 774 F.2d 1079 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (federal law governs OPM determinations; state law consulted only when federal law is not determinative)