(a) An agency must waive a medical standard or physical requirement established under this part when an applicant or employee, unable to meet that standard or requirement, presents sufficient evidence that the applicant or employee, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential duties of the position without endangering the health and safety of the applicant or employee or others. Additional information obtained by the agency may be considered in determining whether a waiver is appropriate. An agency may establish timeframes, in writing, for submission of initial or additional information for consideration, with allowance for reasonable extensions.
(b) Agencies may, but are not required to, establish medical review boards to help the agency provide a case-by-case, fact-based, individualized assessment whenever an individual is found to not meet agency medical standards or physical requirements. An agency may also use a medical review board as a forum for a higher level of review within the agency when medical questions or issues arise. If established, the Board is expected to recommend administrative actions that are consistent with applicable law, as well as applicable and current medical practice standards of care, through the combined expertise of its members.
(c) The use and composition of a medical review board will be determined by the agency. Upon request, an agency will provide to OPM information regarding the composition and use of medical review boards. OPM may issue guidance from time to time as to best practices with respect to the composition and use of such boards.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case:
Fallacaro v. Richardson, 965 F. Supp. 87 (D.D.C. 1997).
Fallacaro v. Richardson, 965 F. Supp. 87 (D.D.C. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Waiver Finally, plaintiff argues that defendants violated 5 C.F.R. § 339.204 which provides that: Agencies must waive a medical standard or physical requirement established under this part when there is sufficient evidence that an applichnt or employee, with or without…”
Celso Maldonado v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 4× “5 mile run portion of the PAT pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 339.204 . 5 ID at 9. On review, the appellant appears to challenge this finding, stating among other things 6 that S.”
Senter v. Energy (Fed. Cir. 2025).
· cites it 3× “Senter contended reversal was required because DOE: (i) discriminated against him on the basis of a physical dis- ability by denying him the reasonable accommodation of waiving the physical fitness requirement for the one-mile run; (ii) violated 5 C.F.R. § 339.204 (a) by not…”
Earnest Howard v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2014).
· cites it 3× “¶11 The appellant further argues that the agency was required to waive the PAT under 5 C.F.R. § 339.204 , which requires agencies to waive such tests where there is sufficient evidence that the employee can perform the essential functions of his position without endangering the…”
Earnest Howard v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2014).
· cites it 3× “¶11 The appellant further argues that the agency was required to waive the PAT under 5 C.F.R. § 339.204 , which requires agencies to waive such tests where there is sufficient evidence that the employee can perform the essential functions of his position without endangering the…”
Jaliwala v. Dhs (Fed. Cir. 2021).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 339.204 (a). Mr. Jaliwala’s waiver request was reviewed by a Training Review Board, who recommended that his request be denied, but that he be given a second chance to pass the PFT and return to training.”
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.