Joseph M. Lee v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 762 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Joseph M. Lee v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 762 F.2d 987 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Smith v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 56 F. App'x 509 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 988 Limiting judicial review of disability determinations under statute6 citing casesThe Supreme Court has recently ruled that the factual underpinnings of 5 U.S.C. § 8347 (c) disability determinations may not be judicially reviewed.1 citing court put it this way
  • Smith v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 56 F. App'x 509 (Fed. Cir. 2003).unpublished
    (The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the factual underpinnings of 5 U.S.C. § 8347 (c) disability determinations may not be judicially reviewed.)
  • Charles W. Cook v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 98 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1996).unpublished
    DISCUSSION 6 In disability retirement cases, this court may review the Board's decision only to determine whether "there has been a substantial departure from important procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or…
  • Daisy M. Graves v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 11 F.3d 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1993).unpublished
    See Smith v. OPM, 784 F.2d 397, 400 (Fed.Cir.1986); Hammond v. OPM, 784 F.2d 392, 393 (Fed.Cir.1986); McEachern v. OPM, 776 F.2d 1539, 1542-43 (Fed.Cir.1985); Lee v. OPM, 762 F.2d 987, 988 (Fed.Cir.1985).
  • Roger E. Simpson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 954 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1991).unpublished
    Our jurisdiction to review decisions denying applications for disability retirement, with exceptions not applicable here, is limited to determining whether "there has been a substantial departure from important procedural rights, a miscons…
  • Graydon Roger Boles v. Edward J. Derwinski, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 954 F.2d 732 (Fed. Cir. 1991).unpublished
    (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction where a single factual issue was presented on appeal, because review of factual determinations by Office of Personnel Management in disability cases is barred)
  • John Z. Benz v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 833 F.2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987).unpublished
    See, e.g., Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 760 F.2d 244, 246 (Fed.Cir.1985); Lee v. Office of Personnel Management, 762 F.2d 987, 988 (Fed.Cir.1985). 4 Benz also explicitly argues that the board erred in sustaining the determinati…
Other citing cases3 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph M. LEE, Petitioner,
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent
Appeal 85-1891.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
May 22, 1985.
Published opinion
762 F.2d 987
1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 14999
Joseph M. Lee, pro se., William J. Snider, Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and M. Susan Burnett, Asst. Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent., Thomas F. Moyer, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., of counsel., John Howard, Office of Gen. Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, of counsel.
Bennett, Nichols, Nies.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
NIES, Circuit Judge.

Joseph M. Lee appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (board), Case No. AT831L8410101, 22 M.S.P.R. 654 sustaining Office of Personnel Management’s denial of his claim for disability retirement based on hearing loss. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the sole issue presented by the appeal in this court.

Background

On the basis of a hearing impairment, Mr. Lee applied for disability retirement from his position as a Claims Representative with the Social Security Administration. The Office of Personnel Management disallowed Mr. Lee’s application because he had not shown, inter alia, “that the medical condition is incompatible with either useful service or retention in the position.” That decision was sustained following reconsideration. Mr. Lee next appealed to the board which, following a hearing, sustained OPM’s decision. The board stated that “appellant has a hearing loss which is not so severe as to render him unable to perform his job. Thus, he is not disabled within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 8337(a).”

[*988] On appeal to this court, Mr. Lee seeks review of the disability determination, urging that we reevaluate the medical reports and other information of record concerning hearing requirements of his job. In short, all of Mr. Lee’s arguments are directed to the fact and extent of the disability itself, based upon the evidence of record.

Opinion

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that the factual underpinnings of 5 U.S.C. § 8347(c) disability determinations may not be judicially reviewed. Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1620, 1633, 84 L.Ed.2d 674 (1985). Our jurisdiction to review decisions denying applications for disability retirement, except as provided in 5 U.S.C. § 8347(d)(2) not here applicable, is limited to determining whether “there has been a substantial departure from important procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like error ‘going to the heart of the administrative determination.’ ” Scroggins v. United States, 397 F.2d 295, 297, 184 Ct.Cl. 530, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 952, 89 S.Ct. 376, 21 L.Ed.2d 363 (1968), quoted in Lindahl, 105 S.Ct. at 1633. The issue raised in Mr. Lee’s appeal to this court, namely, that his hearing impairment is so extensive as to prevent him from satisfactorily performing his job, does not fall within the bounds of this court’s jurisdiction as above defined. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See Smith v. Office of Personnel Management, 760 F.2d 244 (Fed.Cir.1985).

DISMISSED