5 C.F.R. § 1201.118
Board reopening of final decisions
Regardless of any other provision of this part, the Board may at any time reopen any appeal in which it has issued a final order or in which an initial decision has become the Board's final decision by operation of law. The Board will exercise its discretion to reopen an appeal only in unusual or extraordinary circumstances and generally within a short period of time after the decision becomes final. The parties have no right to request reopening and no right to a response from the Board on a request for reopening. Any response to a request for reopening from the Office of the Clerk of the Board does not constitute a final order or decision of the Board, and thus is not subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 7703 or § 1201.120.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111
cases (49 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: United States Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1 (2001).
United States Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1 (2001). “" 5 CFR § 1201.118 (2001) ("The Board may reopen an appeal and reconsider a decision of [an administrative judge] on its own motion at any time, regardless of any other provisions of this part.”
Roseanne Cronin v. United States Postal Serv., 2022 MSPB 13 (MSPB 2022). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 (providing that the Board will exercise its discretion to reopen an appeal only in unusual or extraordinary circumstances and generally within a short period of time after the decision becomes final).”
Cobert v. Miller, 800 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Several weeks later, however, on May 13, 2013, the Board reopened the case on its own pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 . After doing so, it vacated its April 3 opinion and issued a substitute opinion, still reversing Ms.”
McIntosh v. Def., 53 F.4th 630 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 . In contrast, no principal officer had the power to review the final deci- sions of administrative patent judges before the constitu- tional remedy in Arthrex.”
Barry J. Abell v. Dep't of the Navy, 343 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Abell’s case on its own motion under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 . Abell, 92 M.S.P.R. at 401.”
Rafael Zamot v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 332 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “§ 7701 (e)(1)(B), the Board has provided by regulation that it may “reopen an appeal and reconsider a decision of a judge on its own motion at any time,” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 . The Board enjoys broad discretion in deciding whether to reopen particular appeals, and .”
Warren S. Forest v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 47 F.3d 409 (Fed. Cir. 1995). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 (1994). Forest now appeals.”
Diggs v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 670 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Though the Board concluded that the petition did not meet the criteria for review, it reopened the case on its own motion pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 . Finding no error in the Initial Decision, the Board affirmed.”
Allen v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 420 F. App'x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Because the record before us contains no indication that the April 8, 2010 PFR should have been addressed in the Board’s 2010 Final Decision — and shows, instead, that the Board declined to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 to reconsider its 2009 Final…”
Brenneman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 439 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “§ 7701 (e)(1)(B); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 . If she can offer persuasive evidence that the Postal Service deemed her medically unfit to return to her job at the time she applied for disability retirement, despite its official position as of that time that she did not have a disabling…”
Merle S. Sargent, Petitioner, v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Respondent, 229 F.3d 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Normally, such issues have been resolved in the first instance by the Board, acting either through the administrative judge or by the Board upon petition for review»' by the party or reopening of the case on its own motion under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 . See, e.g., Harris, 142 F.”
Lee v. United States Postal Serv., 367 F. App'x 137 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “However, the Board also reopened the case on its own motion, under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.118 , in order to grant the Postal Service’s motion to dismiss the appeal as *139 settled.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.