Teresa K. Day v. Office of Personnel Management
Background
- In 2009 OPM approved Teresa K. Day for FERS disability retirement; she initially elected OWCP compensation instead of FERS annuity.
- In 2015 Day asked OPM to convert her election to FERS; when she believed OPM failed to act she appealed to the MSPB alleging constructive denial.
- At a telephonic hearing the parties reached an oral settlement (entered on the record): Day’s FERS election would be effective January 1, 2016; OPM would take action to begin the FERS benefit as of that date; OWCP payments after that date would be overpayments.
- The MSPB issued an initial decision enforcing the settlement and dismissed the appeal as settled. Day then filed a petition for enforcement alleging OPM breached by not immediately paying the previously-determined $1,740 monthly annuity, placing her in interim pay status, and requesting more paperwork.
- OPM responded that Day’s original application was incomplete and that it needed additional information to finalize the annuity calculation; the administrative judge denied enforcement, finding no material breach.
- The Board denied Day’s petition for review, concluding the settlement did not specify the annuity amount or foreclose OPM’s administrative steps, and affirmed that OPM complied by treating the election as effective, placing Day in interim pay, and seeking necessary information.
Issues
| Issue | Day's Argument | OPM's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement required OPM to begin payment of a specific $1,740 annuity immediately | Settlement should trigger immediate payment of the previously determined $1,740 monthly annuity without further computation | Settlement did not fix an annuity amount; OPM may complete its administrative process to calculate entitlement | Held: Settlement did not specify amount; OPM may complete annuity calculation before final payments |
| Whether OPM materially breached by placing Day in interim pay status | Interim pay status and delays contradicted the settlement’s mandate to begin FERS benefit by 1/1/2016 | Interim pay status and information requests were reasonable administrative steps to finalize benefits | Held: No material breach; interim pay and requests for information consistent with settlement and law |
| Whether the settlement was ambiguous as to administrative steps or annuity calculation | Day argued the agreement required immediate fixed payments (ambiguous claimed in practice) | Agreement is silent on amount/steps but not ambiguous; applicable statutes/regulations govern calculation | Held: Agreement unambiguous; lack of express term does not create ambiguity; statutes/regulations incorporated by reference |
| Whether Day’s petition for review met filing/submission requirements | Day filed a brief two-sentence petition asserting error | Board required specific grounds and record citations; OPM’s late response did not affect merits | Held: Day’s bare assertion insufficient, but Board reviewed and found no error in compliance decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 659 (2009) (Board may enforce settlements and agency must show compliance or good cause for noncompliance)
- Sweet v. U.S. Postal Service, 89 M.S.P.R. 28 (2001) (settlement interpreted as contract; plain terms govern; extrinsic evidence only for ambiguity)
- Landrith v. Office of Personnel Management, 99 M.S.P.R. 76 (2005) (silence in an agreement can be nondispositive rather than ambiguous)
- Young v. U.S. Postal Service, 113 M.S.P.R. 609 (2010) (parties are presumed to incorporate governing statutes/regulations into agreements)
- Brown v. Department of the Navy, 60 M.S.P.R. 461 (1994) (Board enforces settlements entered into the record)
- Stoglin v. Department of the Air Force, 123 M.S.P.R. 163 (2015) (requirements for a petition for review to state objections and cite record)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court ordinarily will not waive the statutory deadline for filing an appeal)