Melissa A. Wall v. Office of Personnel Management
Background
- Appellant (former USPS mail carrier) applied for FERS disability retirement; OPM denied reconsideration for lack of adequate objective medical evidence for heart disease and other conditions.
- OPM relied on inconsistencies and lack of objective findings in the medical record, including conflicting notes from appellant’s primary care physician and a normal stress test.
- Appellant’s employer noted attendance problems and effected removal after placing a proposed removal in abeyance while she applied for disability retirement.
- SSA issued a decision stating appellant could not perform duties of her Regular Carrier position but did not award SSDI; appellant cited that SSA finding on review.
- Appellant argued she could not obtain further medical records because she lacks health insurance; Board noted inability to afford treatment does not by itself bar relief, but existing medical evidence while insured was inconsistent and insufficient.
- The Board affirmed the administrative judge’s decision denying disability retirement, concluding appellant failed to meet her burden by preponderant evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant proved she was disabled for FERS disability retirement | Appellant: SSA found she could not perform her carrier duties; supervisor said she could not perform job; financial limits prevent obtaining more records | OPM: Medical record lacks objective support; treating notes are contradictory; stress test normal | Denied — medical evidence inconsistent/insufficient to meet preponderance requirement |
| Whether SSA’s statement that appellant could not perform carrier duties is controlling | Appellant: SSA’s finding supports disability entitlement | OPM/Board: SSA comment may be considered but can be outweighed by inconsistent medical evidence | Denied — SSA statement outweighed by contrary medical evidence |
| Whether supervisor’s statement establishes inability to perform duties | Appellant: Supervisor reported she was unable to perform duties | OPM/Board: Supervisor relied on medical evidence that was later contradicted | Denied — supervisor’s statement not competent given reliance on contradicted medical evidence |
| Whether inability to afford further medical treatment excuses lack of evidence | Appellant: Lack of insurance prevented obtaining more records | OPM/Board: Financial inability alone doesn’t bar relief, but available evidence while insured is controlling | Denied — inability to afford treatment acknowledged but existing records are inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Thorne v. Office of Personnel Management, 105 M.S.P.R. 171 (MSPB 2007) (appellant bears preponderant burden in voluntary disability retirement appeals)
- Rucker v. Office of Personnel Management, 117 M.S.P.R. 669 (MSPB 2012) (standards for showing condition incompatible with useful and efficient service)
- Henderson v. Office of Personnel Management, 117 M.S.P.R. 313 (MSPB 2012) (Board considers objective findings, diagnoses, opinions, and subjective evidence)
- Dunn v. Office of Personnel Management, 60 M.S.P.R. 426 (MSPB 1994) (types of evidence considered in disability retirement determinations)
- Suter v. Office of Personnel Management, 88 M.S.P.R. 80 (MSPB 2001) (Board must consider SSA award but may weigh conflicting medical evidence)
- Beeler-Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 112 M.S.P.R. 479 (MSPB 2009) (supervisor statements are considered but must be supported by competent medical evidence)
- Craig v. Office of Personnel Management, 92 M.S.P.R. 449 (MSPB 2002) (lack of funds for treatment does not automatically preclude disability retirement)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (statutory deadline for court review is jurisdictional and strictly enforced)