Richard Louis Davis v. Office of Personnel Management
Background
- Decedent (appellant’s brother) died Jan. 28, 2013; appellant applied to OPM (Sept. 2014) for the FERS lump-sum death benefit as a sibling and heir.
- OPM’s file recorded a March 24, 2015 report of contact stating the appellant said the decedent “had a biological son” but the family could not find him; OPM denied benefits (June 11, 2015 initial decision; Jan. 27, 2016 final decision) because a child would take precedence.
- Appellant and three siblings submitted notarized affidavits under penalty of perjury asserting the decedent had no biological or adopted children and never presented any child to the family; appellant testified at hearing he only heard a rumor about a son and believed no son existed.
- Administrative judge found stepdaughters were not adopted (so they do not prevail) but credited the OPM report of contact over the affidavits and hearing testimony, concluding a possible biological son existed and denying the siblings the lump-sum benefit.
- Board granted the petition for review, found the administrative judge’s credibility analysis incomplete and improperly weighted hearsay (report of contact) over live testimony and unrebutted affidavits, and remanded for further development and factfinding (including possible supplemental hearing and production of MetLife/FEGLI claim materials).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether siblings are entitled to FERS lump-sum given alleged biological son | Davis: affidavits and testimony show no biological/adopted children; siblings should receive benefit | OPM: report of contact indicates decedent had a biological son who would have priority | Remanded — Board found AJ’s credibility ruling insufficient; further development required |
| Proper weight to give OPM report of contact (hearsay) vs. live testimony/affidavits | Davis: report reflected only a rumor; live testimony and sworn affidavits more probative | OPM: report of contact supported initial denial | Held: AJ misstated reasons for crediting report; must analyze hearsay probative value and compare to live evidence on remand |
| Adequacy of credibility findings under Hillen factors | Davis: AJ failed to apply/identify Hillen credibility factors when favoring the report of contact | OPM: relied on apparent prior inconsistent statement in OPM report | Held: AJ’s credibility determination incomplete under Hillen; Board will not defer and remands for fuller analysis |
| Whether supplemental proceedings and document production are needed (MetLife/FEGLI) | Davis: MetLife already paid siblings after due diligence; relevant documents should be produced | OPM: maintained denial based on possible heir | Held: Remand ordered — AJ to solicit evidence re: MetLife payment efforts, obtain claim form/correspondence, and consider supplemental hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hillen v. Department of the Army, 35 M.S.P.R. 453 (1987) (sets out factors an adjudicator must analyze and explain in credibility determinations)
- Haebe v. Department of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Board must defer to demeanor‑based credibility findings unless there are sufficiently sound reasons not to)
- Rapp v. Office of Personnel Management, 108 M.S.P.R. 674 (2008) (Board can overturn credibility findings when they are incomplete or inconsistent with record)
- Adamsen v. Department of Agriculture, 116 M.S.P.R. 331 (2011) (outlines factors for evaluating probative value of hearsay evidence)
- Social Security Administration v. Whittlesey, 59 M.S.P.R. 684 (1993) (live testimony typically more probative than out‑of‑court statements)