Case: 20-2133 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JOANNA E. HARTY,
Petitioner
v.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Respondent
______________________
2020-2133
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. NY-844E-20-0153-I-1.
______________________
Decided: February 11, 2021
______________________
JOANNA E. HARTY, Ridge, NY, pro se.
DELISA SANCHEZ, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for respondent. Also represented by JEFFREY B.
CLARK, REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT EDWARD
KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________
Before LOURIE, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 20-2133 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2021
2 HARTY v. OPM
PER CURIAM.
Ms. Joanna Harty appeals from a decision of the Merit
Systems Protection Board (Board) upholding the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) decision denying her appli-
cation for disability retirement benefits. Because
Ms. Harty alleges only factual error in the Board’s decision,
for which we are without jurisdiction to review, we dismiss
this appeal.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Harty served as a mail clerk at the Internal Reve-
nue Service (IRS) for a number of years before her removal
on April 1, 2019. App’x at 2. 1 Ms. Harty alleges that dur-
ing her performance of the duties of her job on August 22,
2018, she injured her back while lifting a heavy “bucket of
work.” Id. at 3. Following her removal, Ms. Harty sought
disability retirement benefits from the IRS, submitting
various doctors’ notes as supporting evidence, including
one from three days after the alleged injury occurred (Au-
gust 25, 2018), and a report from an MRI taken on May 23,
2019. Id. at 2–3.
OPM denied Ms. Harty’s claim for benefits on Novem-
ber 1, 2019. App’x at 20. OPM determined that Ms. Harty
did “not meet the criteria for federal disability entitlement
and [is] not disabled within the meaning of the retirement
law.” Id. In reaching this determination, OPM reasoned
that “the medical evidence does not support [that
Ms. Harty’s] medical condition is incompatible with either
useful or efficient service or retention in the position of rec-
ord.” Id. Ms. Harty sought reconsideration of this decision
and OPM again denied Ms. Harty’s claim. See App’x at 23.
1 Citations to App’x refer to the appendix submitted
with the government’s brief.
Case: 20-2133 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 02/11/2021
HARTY v. OPM 3
Ms. Harty appealed the OPM denial to the Board,
which likewise concluded that she had not met her burden
of demonstrating her entitlement to disability retirement
benefits. App’x at 4. The Board credited Ms. Harty’s testi-
mony and evidence that she “remains in severe pain” after
injuring her back “lift[ing] a heavy bucket of work.” Id. at
4–5 (citing Ms. Harty’s testimony). Nonetheless, the Board
concluded the entirety of the record evidence “does not sup-
port a finding that her injury constituted a disability under
the law . . . .” Id. at 5. The Board explained that the evi-
dence before it, while demonstrating injury, did not demon-
strate disability. See id. at 5–6. Moreover, the Board
declined to credit the MRI, in part because the record “con-
tains no medical evidence linking the MRI results to her
claimed trauma.” Id. at 6. Ms. Harty appeals this denial
decision to our court.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Ms. Harty asks the court to reconsider her
claim for disability retirement benefits, including both the
decision that she did not meet the standard to show that
her injury constituted disability under the law and the
Board’s refusal to credit her MRI. See Petitioner’s Br. at
5–6.
This court’s review of a claimant’s entitlement to disa-
bility retirement benefits is very limited. We cannot review
the factual underpinnings of a disability determination.
See Lindahl v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
470 U.S. 768, 791 (1985)
(citing
5 U.S.C. § 8347(c)). Under § 8347(c), factual “ques-
tions of disability and dependency” are “final and conclu-
sive and are not subject to review.” Whether substantial
evidence supports the Board’s disability determination is
not a challenge within this court’s jurisdiction. Baker v.
Off. of Pers. Mgmt.,
782 F.2d 993, 994 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We
have jurisdiction to determine only “whether there has
been a substantial departure from important procedural
rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or
Case: 20-2133 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 02/11/2021
4 HARTY v. OPM
some like error going to the heart of the administrative de-
termination.” Lindahl,
470 U.S. at 791 (citation and inter-
nal quotation marks omitted).
Ms. Harty asks this court to reconsider the evidence
she presented to the Board and to overturn the Board’s de-
termination. This sort of re-weighing of evidence is pre-
cluded by § 8347(c), and thus, this court is without
jurisdiction to review her fact-based challenge. See id.
Likewise, we cannot review Ms. Harty’s contention that
the MRI evidence should be afforded more weight than the
Board gave it. Such a determination falls squarely within
the statute’s mandate that OPM is to determine all “ques-
tions of disability and dependency.” § 8347(c). The record
leaves little doubt that Ms. Harty suffers from back pain,
but we lack the authority to consider her challenge to
OPM’s and the Board’s fact findings that the submitted ev-
idence did not demonstrate that “her injury constituted a
disability under the law.” App’x at 5.
CONCLUSION
Because Ms. Harty’s appeal raises only issues that are
beyond this court’s jurisdiction, the case is dismissed.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
