Scrivens v. Office of Personnel Management
663 F. App'x 926
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Scrivens, a U.S. Postal Service letter carrier, reported PTSD and anxiety after an August 21, 2013 workplace incident and stopped working in October 2014.
- Medical notes: psychologist Dr. Isom placed her on medical leave and suggested exploring disability retirement; psychiatrist Dr. Martinez cleared her to work part time in June 2014 and full time in July 2014.
- Scrivens applied for FERS disability retirement in May 2014, citing inability to concentrate (especially while driving) and other symptoms affecting job performance.
- OPM denied the application (Dec. 2014), finding the record did not establish inability to perform useful and efficient service and noting no evidence she exhausted reasonable-accommodation options.
- The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed OPM’s denial; Scrivens appealed pro se to the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Scrivens' Argument | OPM/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board failed to consider medical evidence linking Scrivens' mental condition to her job duties | Board ignored a mental impairment questionnaire and other medical evidence showing disability | Record lacks medical opinion tying impairments to inability to perform specific job duties; evidence did not establish disability preventing useful and efficient service | Affirmed: Board considered the evidence and correctly found no medical showing that condition prevented useful and efficient service |
| Whether procedural or legal error warrants overturning the Board | Board committed procedural error by not considering certain medical documents | Board’s review was proper and within limited judicial review scope under FERS law | Affirmed: No procedural error or legal misapplication requiring reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 58 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (explains limited scope of judicial review of FERS disability determinations)
- Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768 (1985) (identifies grounds for judicial review of administrative disability determinations such as substantial procedural departures)