(a) A routine pre-employment medical examination is appropriate only for a position with specific medical standards and/or physical requirements, or that is covered by a medical evaluation program established under this part.
(b) Subject to § 339.103, an agency may require an applicant or employee who has applied for or occupies a position that has medical standards and/or physical requirements, or is covered by a medical evaluation program established under this part, to report for a medical examination:
(1) Subsequent to a tentative offer of employment or reemployment (including return to work from medically based absence on the basis of a medical condition);
(2) On a regularly recurring, periodic basis after appointment in accordance with § 339.205; or
(3) Whenever the agency has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that there is a question about an employee's continued capacity to meet the medical standards or physical requirements of a position.
(c) An agency may require an employee who has applied for or is receiving continuation of pay or compensation as a result of an injury or disease covered under the provisions of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to report for an examination to determine medical limitations that may affect job placement decisions.
(d) An agency may require an employee who is released from his or her competitive level in a reduction in force under part 351 of this chapter to undergo a relevant medical evaluation if the position to which the employee has assignment rights has medical standards and/or physical requirements, that are different from those required in the employee's current position.
(e)(1) An agency may order a psychiatric examination (including a psychological assessment) only when:
(i) The result of a current general medical examination that the agency has the authority to order under this section indicates no physical explanation for behavior or actions that may affect the safe and efficient performance of the applicant or employee, the safety of others, and/or the vulnerability of business operation and information systems to potential threats, or
(ii) A psychiatric examination or psychological assessment is part of the medical standards for a position having medical standards or required under a medical evaluation program established under this part.
(2) A psychiatric examination or psychological assessment authorized under paragraphs (e)(1) of this section must be conducted in accordance with accepted professional standards by a licensed physician certified in psychiatry by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology or the American Osteopathic Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, or by a licensed psychologist or clinical neuropsychologist, and may only be used to make inquiry into a person's mental fitness as it directly relates to successfully performing the duties of the position without significant risk to the applicant or employee or others, and/or to the vulnerability of business operation and information systems to potential threats.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case:
Vickers v. Powell, 493 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Vickers v. Powell, 493 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “In a letter dated March 23, 2001, Bedwell notified Vickers that before she could be allowed to return to work after an illness, she was required pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 1 to successfully complete a medical examination at the U.”
Davis v. Ashcroft, 355 F. Supp. 2d 330 (D.D.C. 2005).
· cites it 4× “5 C.F.R. § 339.301 (e) (emphasis added). By using identical language in the April 12, 2000 letter sent to the plaintiff, it was clear that the defendant was requiring the plaintiff to submit to the psychological evaluation pursuant to § 339.”
Fogg, Matthew v. Ashcroft, John, 254 F.3d 103 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “5 CFR § 339.301 (b) (as quoted in Medical Determinations Related to Employability, 49 Fed.”
Scott v. Napolitano, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (S.D. Cal. 2010).
“Morgan stated that he was exercising FPS’s authority under 5 CFR 339.301 to require that Plaintiff undergo a medical/psychological fitness-for-duty examination to be performed at FPS’s expense by a doctor(s) selected by FPS in consultation with CHS.”
Martin v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 412 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“at 9 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 et seq.) An additional set of agency guidelines stated: The initial and annual medical examinations must include a psychological assessment of the applicant/officer’s emotional and mental stability by a psychiatrist or psychologist.”
Brown v. Kellogg, 2015 NMCA 006 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 (e)(1). The duty imposed upon federal law enforcement agencies would be evaluated under a different and distinct set of policy considerations focusing upon employment and workplace considerations.”
Fowler v. New York City Dep't of Sanitation, 704 F. Supp. 1264 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
“Defendants argue, and I agree, that the provision of urine specimens as part of a physical examination to determine fitness for employment does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.”
Doe Ex Rel. Lavery v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 814 F. Supp. 844 (N.D. Cal. 1992).
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation requires that physical examinations, which include anal, vaginal and oral cavity examinations, be performed on all special agents and agent applicants, under the authority of 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 . From approximately December 1984 to August…”
Ellis A. Archerda v. Dep't of Def., 2014 MSPB 49 (MSPB 2014).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 (b): [A]n agency may require an individual who has applied for or occupies a position which has medical standards or physical requirements or which is part of an established medical evaluation program, to report for a medical examination: .”
Ellis A. Archerda v. Dep't of Def., 2014 MSPB 49 (MSPB 2014).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 (b): [A]n agency may require an individual who has applied for or occupies a position which has medical standards or physical requirements or which is part of an established medical evaluation program, to report for a medical examination: .”
Joseph Ferrante v. Env't Prot. Agency (MSPB 2022).
· cites it 4× “¶9 Under 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 (b)(3) (2015), an agency has the authority to require an employee who occupies a position with physical and medical standards to report for a medical exam whenever there is a direct question about his 6 continued capacity to meet the physical or…”
Straws v. Spencer (W.D. Wash. 2021).
· cites it 3× “at 19:15–20:7; see also 5 C.F.R. § 339.301 (a) (authorizing routine 17 pre-employment medical examinations for positions with physical requirements).”
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.