Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2009

Wall v. Office of Personnel Management

Wall v. Office of Personnel Management
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · Decided October 13, 2009 · No. 2009-3205 · Lourie, Linn, Moore
348 F. App'x 576
Court's original (PDF)

Counsel

Wayne C. Wall, of Jackson, Mississippi, pro se., Leslie Cayer Ohta, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Steven J. Gillingham, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Wade M. Plunkett, Office of General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, of Washington, DC.

Wall v. Office of Personnel Management

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

LINN, Circuit Judge.

Wayne C. Wall (“Wall”) petitions for review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), dated April 17, 2009, which affirmed the denial of Wall’s application for disability retirement. Wall v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 111 M.S.P.R. 122 (2009). In reaching that decision, the Board gave no weight to Wall’s post-termination medical evidence, citing Reilly v. Office of Personnel Management, 108 M.S.P.R. 360 (2008).

On July 15, 2009, we vacated the Reilly decision, holding that the categorical rejection of all medical evidence not based on tests or examinations conducted during the petitioner’s employment was an erroneous legal standard. Reilly v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 571 F.3d 1372, 1382-83 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (holding that the Board’s standard constitutes “a substantial departure from important procedural rights and goes to the heart of the administrative determination”). In the present case, because the Board’s categorical rejection of Wall’s post-termination medical evidence is improper under our recent decision in Reilly, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.

VACATED and REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.