C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 339—MEDICAL QUALIFICATION DETERMINATIONS › Subpart A—General

5 C.F.R. § 339.102

Purpose and effect

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This part defines the circumstances under which OPM permits medical documentation to be required and examinations and/or evaluations conducted to determine the nature of a medical condition that affects safe and efficient performance.

(b) Personnel decisions based wholly or in part on the review of medical documentation, as defined below, and the results of medical examinations and evaluations must be made in accordance with appropriate sections of this part.

(c) Failure to meet medical (which may include psychological) standards and/or physical requirements established under this part means that the applicant or employee is not qualified for the position, unless reasonable accommodation or a waiver is appropriate, in accordance with §§ 339.103 and 339.204. An employee's refusal to be examined or provide medical documentation, as defined below, in accordance with a proper agency order authorized under this part, constitutes a basis for appropriate disciplinary or adverse action. After a tentative job offer of employment conditioned on completion of a medical examination, an applicant's refusal to be examined or provide medical documentation, as defined below, may result in the applicant's removal from further consideration for the position.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2022 · leading case: Martin v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 412 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Martin v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 412 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “” 5 C.F.R. § 339.102 (a) & (c) (2004). The VA Handbook provides that “[o]nly those officers who have successfully completed .”
Ellis A. Archerda v. Dep't of Def., 2014 MSPB 49 (MSPB 2014). “See 5 C.F.R. § 339.102 (c) (an employee may face an adverse action if he refuses “to be examined in accordance with a proper agency order”).”
Ellis A. Archerda v. Dep't of Def., 2014 MSPB 49 (MSPB 2014). “See 5 C.F.R. § 339.102 (c) (an employee may face an adverse action if he refuses “to be examined in accordance with a proper agency order”).”
Joseph Ferrante v. Env't Prot. Agency (MSPB 2022). “5 C.F.R. § 339.102 (c) (2015) (explaining that “[a]n employee’s refusal to be examined in accordance with a proper agency order authorized under [5 C.”
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.