Lau v. MSPB ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Case: 22-1289   Document: 26     Page: 1   Filed: 05/31/2022
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    KIM LAU,
    Petitioner
    v.
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
    Respondent
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
    SERVICES,
    Intervenor
    ______________________
    2022-1289
    ______________________
    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
    Board in No. DE-1221-21-0300-W-1.
    ______________________
    ON MOTION
    ______________________
    Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    ORDER
    The Merit Systems Protection Board moves to vacate
    its final decision and to remand this case for further
    Case: 22-1289    Document: 26     Page: 2      Filed: 05/31/2022
    2                                                 LAU   v. MSPB
    adjudication so that “the administrative judge can reeval-
    uate whether [petitioner] met the jurisdictional require-
    ments for an [individual right of action] appeal.” Mot. at
    11. Among other things, the Board argues that remand is
    warranted to allow the administrative judge in the first in-
    stance to consider Board precedent holding that disclosures
    about a private organization that administers a govern-
    ment program may be protected. Kim Lau consents to the
    motion. The Department of Health and Human Services
    opposes. The Board and Dr. Lau reply.
    It is within this court’s discretion to remand to allow
    the agency to reconsider its previous position. See SKF
    USA Inc. v. United States, 
    254 F.3d 1022
    , 1029 (Fed. Cir.
    2001). Without drawing any conclusions regarding the
    merits of the parties’ arguments, the court agrees that re-
    mand here could preserve party and judicial resources, and
    therefore grants the motion.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is va-
    cated, and the case is remanded to the Board to reconsider
    its decision consistent with the motion and this order.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
    FOR THE COURT
    May 31, 2022                       /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                            Peter R. Marksteiner
    Clerk of Court
    ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 31, 2022
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-1289

Filed Date: 5/31/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/31/2022