5 C.F.R. § 339.101
Coverage
This part applies to—
(a) Applicants for and employees in competitive service positions; and
(b) Applicants for and employees in positions excepted from the competitive service when medical issues arise in connection with an OPM regulation that governs a particular personnel action, such as removal of a preference eligible employee in the excepted service under part 752.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1966–1992 · leading case: Jane Doe v. Robert E. Hampton, Individually & as Chairman, U. S. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 566 F.2d 265 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
Jane Doe v. Robert E. Hampton, Individually & as Chairman, U. S. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 566 F.2d 265 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “See generally 5 C.F.R. § 339.101 (1974); Salter v. United States, 412 F.”
Diana M. Maulding v. Louis W. Sullivan, Sec'y, 961 F.2d 694 (8th Cir. 1992). “5 It determined that the plaintiff’s absence from duty was not justified and that the plaintiff had not met her burden under 5 CFR § 339.101 to provide adequate medical documentation that would excuse her from her assigned lab duties.”
Mrs. Frances B. Chafin v. Dr. Harry D. Pratt, 358 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1966). “See 5 CFR § 339.101 . Process (S): Upon Plaintiff’s refusal to submit to such an examination, her *352 superiors notified her of their intention to apply for her disability retirement.”
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.