Fedweek Legal

On November 26, 2007, in Vanieken-Ryals v. Office of Personnel Management, Docket No. 2006-3260 (C.A. Fed. 2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) decision sustaining the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) denial of a disability retirement claim. The Federal Circuit held that medical evidence submitted in support of a disability retirement application could not be rejected solely because it lacked so-called “objective” measures such as laboratory tests.

Vanieken-Ryals for many years experienced difficulties with her immediate supervisor, prompting her to apply for early retirement. The agency denied her early retirement application; so she applied for disability retirement claiming complete disability due to several psychological disorders, including major depression and anxiety. Vanieken-Ryals submitted her own statements and several letters, medical reports, and related documentation from her treating psychologist and treating psychiatrist to OPM in support of her claim.

OPM, however, denied her claim, and she appealed to the MSPB. At a hearing, OPM offered no medical evidence countering the treating doctors’ documents or testimony. The MSPB found, like OPM, that Vanieken-Ryals failed to prove her disability because she lacked “objective medical evidence” and had not “definitively exhausted” the possibility that the agency could accommodate her, stating that she failed to prove any disability beyond an inability to work with her particular supervisor. The Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB’s decision holding that:

“It is telling that no authority whatsoever is cited by the MSPB or OPM . . . for the proposition that objective medical evidence is required to prove disability. No statute or applicable regulation of which we are aware imposes such a requirement. In fact, applicable law suggests the opposite rule. OPM’s regulations define the type of “medical documentation” required to establish disability. Such evidence must come from “a licensed physician or other appropriate practitioner,” it must “be justified according to established diagnostic criteria,” and it must “not be inconsistent with generally accepted professional standards.” 5 C.F.R. § 339.104; § 831.1202 . . . .”

The Federal Circuit explained that the problem with a requirement of “objective” tests is particularly pronounced when, as here, the alleged disability arises from purely psychological, as opposed to physical, disorders. The Federal Circuit pointed out that, “no laboratory tests or physical examinations exist, or are even known to be possible, to diagnose some psychological disorders . . . And the practice of psychologists often consists entirely of professional assessment of patient-reported symptoms and experiences. Thus, requiring objective medical evidence would often discriminate against those civil servants who suffer from legitimate, disabling psychological disorders.”

Finally, the Federal Circuit held that weighing the probative value of medical evidence involves a comprehensive and fact-intensive process and “flatly refusing to consider such medical evidence simply for being ‘purely subjective’ is a critical legal error and, at least in a case like this, clearly prejudicial.” The Federal Circuit remanded the case for proper consideration of Vanieken-Ryals’ medical evidence.

* This information is provided by the attorneys at Passman & Kaplan, P.C., a law firm dedicated to the representation of federal employees worldwide. For more information on Passman & Kaplan, P.C., go to http://www.passmanandkaplan.com.

The attorneys at Passman & Kaplan, P.C, are the authors of The Federal Employees Legal Survival Guide, Second Edition, a comprehensive overview of federal employees’ legal rights. To order your copy, go to https://www.fedweek.com/pub/index.phpThis book has been selling for $49.95 plus s&h for over two years, but as a special offer to FEDweek readers, we’ve reduced the price to only $29.95 plus s&h.