Payton v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 526 F. App'x 957

Payton appeals MSPB final order dismissing her restoration appeal as barred by collateral estoppel.
Past related action Payton challenged restoration after removal for cause unrelated to a compensable injury; the court upheld the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction (restoration not due).
Board notified Payton that res judicata may bar the appeal; Payton submitted a response not addressing res judicata.
Initial Decision dismissed Payton’s appeal; Board later confirmed collateral estoppel as the basis for dismissal and clarified the basis was collateral estoppel, not res judicata.
The Board’s Final Order relied on Kroeger for collateral estoppel criteria and Noble for fully represented requirement; Payton petitioned for review; standard of review under 5 U.S.C. § 7703 is applied.
Court affirms the Board, holding collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the restoration issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel bars Payton’s current restoration appeal	Payton argues no collateral estoppel given procedural differences	Board/Agency argues identical issue was litigated and necessary	Yes; collateral estoppel bars the current appeal

Kroeger v. U.S. Postal Serv., 865 F.2d 235 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (establishes criteria for collateral estoppel in agency decisions)
Noble v. U.S. Postal Serv., 93 M.S.P.R. 693 (2003) (fully represented requirement can be satisfied pro se)
Morgan v. Dep’t of Energy, 424 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (identifies four-factor test for collateral estoppel in MSPB context)
New v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 142 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (injury-based restoration jurisdiction considerations)
McNeill v. Dep’t of Defense, 100 M.S.P.R. 146 (2005) (clarifies party status suffices for collateral estoppel)