C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 339—MEDICAL QUALIFICATION DETERMINATIONS › Subpart B—Medical Standards, Physical Requirements, and Medical Evaluation Programs

5 C.F.R. § 339.206

Disqualification on the basis of medical history

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

An employee or applicant may not be disqualified for any position solely on the basis of medical history. For positions subject to medical standards and/or physical requirements, and for positions under medical evaluation programs, a history of a particular medical condition may result in medical disqualification only if the condition at issue is itself disqualifying, recurrence of the condition is based on reasonable medical judgment, and the duties of the position are such that a recurrence of the condition would pose a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of the applicant or employee or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation or any other agency efforts to mitigate risk.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: George Haas v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2022 MSPB 36 (MSPB 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
George Haas v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2022 MSPB 36 (MSPB 2022). · cites it 18× “ANALYSIS Because the appellant’s removal was not based solely on his medical history, 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 does not set forth the agency’s burden to prove its charge .”
Michael Geers v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 6× “Below, the administrative judge and the parties agreed that the applicable standard for assessing the propriety of the appellant’s removal was found at 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 . That regulation generally prohibits removal of an employee based solely on their medical history, while…”
Theodore S Dowd v. Gov't Publ'g Off. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 6× “In addressing the same charge as brought by the agency in this case, those cases relied upon 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 , which provides that an employee may not be removed from a position subject to medical standards or physical restrictions “solely on the basis of medical history.”
Larice Cooper v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2023). · cites it 5× “The administrative judge analyzed the charge by citing to prior Board cases that relied on 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 , 4 finding that the agency proved the charge by establishing that the appellant has a disqualifying medical condition, and that recurrence, which could not be ruled…”
David Pete v. Dep't of Just. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 3× “2015)); see 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 . 2 Following the issuance of the initial decision, 2 Subsequent to the appellant’s removal, the Office of Personnel Management amen ded 5 C.”
Daniel Powell v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 3× “2015), and 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 3 for the proposition that a disabling condition whose recurrence cannot be ruled out must pose “a 2 The issue of sealing the appellant’s medical records remained outstanding at the conclusion of the October 27, 2017 hearing and was not addressed in…”
Robert Miller v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 3× “¶15 On petition for review, the appellant argues that the agency failed to prove the charge under 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 . He disputes the administrative judge’s analysis, arguing that the agency failed to prove that his medical condition is itself disqualifying or that recurrence…”
Angelica Guerra v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 3× “We have reviewed the record, and we find no reason to disturb that finding here.”
Derrick Brown v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 3× “In sustaining the charge in this case, the administrative judge applied the legal standard set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 , which provides that “a history of a particular medical condition may result in medical disqualification only if the condition at issue is itself…”
Ernesto Pelayo v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2025). · cites it 3× “The administrative judge analyzed this charge under 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 and the standard set out in Sanders v.”
Andrew Mays v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 2× “3 Subsequent to the appellant’s removal, the Office of Personnel Management amended 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 as to the degree of risk required.”
Froylan Mendiola v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2015). · cites it 3× “, ¶ 11 ; see 5 C.F.R. § 339.206 . ¶38 As previously noted, the appellant’s position had medical standards and physical requirements.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.