Successful MSPB Cases.
DISABILITY RETIREMENT (MSPB) APPEALS
Henderson v. OPM, MSPB Docket No. AT-844E-08-0071-I-1, August 4, 2008 – The Board overturned the initial decision of an administrative judge and directed OPM to grant disability retirement.
L. O. vs. OPM, MSPB Docket No. DE-844E-07-0134-I-1 (issued 04/15/07) – disability retirement benefits for an air traffic control specialist awarded by MSPB Administrative Judge following a hearing, after the benefits had been denied twice by OPM.
* Lisa A. Bennett v. OPM, MSPB Docket No. DC-844E-06-0520-I-1 (issued 07/05/06) – disability retirement approved before MSPB hearing after prior OPM denials.
* Brian N. Peterson v. OPM, MSPB Docket No. CH-831E-06-0033-I-1 (issued 01/12/06) – disability retirement approved before MSPB hearing after prior OPM denials.
* Gabriel Gonzalez v. OPM, MSPB Docket No. DE-844E-05-0140-I-1 (issued 03/23/05) – disability retirement approved before MSPB hearing after prior OPM denials.
* Judy Calegari v. OPM, MSPB Docket No. SF-844E-05-0211-I-1 (issued 03/09/05) – disability retirement approved before MSPB hearing, after being denied twice by OPM.
* Carolyn Martinez v. OPM, 2004WL1699514 (PERSONNET) (06/30/04) – disability retirement granted by MSPB after being twice denied by OPM. The employer, U. S. Postal Service, had placed Ms. Martinez in a rehabilitation position (video coding system technician), but despite this placement we proved that she nevertheless was unable to perform the duties of that job due to her neck and arm problems, and thus was entitled to disability retirement.
ADVERSE ACTION (MSPB) APPEALS
Mark Griffin v. Dept. of Navy, 2004WL3087077 (PERSONNET) (11/26/04) – employee’s termination by Navy Department reversed by Administrative Judge based on violation of employee’s right to due process of law.
Mark Bumblis v. Dept. of Navy, 2003WL22778928 (PERSONNET) (11/12/03) – The employer, a military facility, had fired Mr. Bumblis for allegedly being unable to perform his duties due to medical restrictions stemming from a back injury. We proved that certain job duties the Navy claimed were essential to the job were not, and that he was fired because his supervisors perceived him to be disabled.