TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James E. Cox v. Merit Systems Protection Board

James E. COX, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent

Cox v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 817 F.2d 100 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 17, 1987
Docket
No. 86-1659
Judges
Smith, Nies, Newman
Citations
817 F.2d 100

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

James E. Cox seeks review of the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Case No. DA03538610141, dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, his appeal from the Department of Transportation’s denial of his request for retirement from the Federal Aviation Administration. We affirm.

* DISCUSSION Cox seeks restoration to his former or equivalent position on the ground that he was “separated or furloughed from a position without time limitation as a result of a compensable injury.” 5 C.F.R. § 353 .-103(c)(1) (1986). Cox proffered as evidence of his compensable injury his receipt of Office of Workers Compensation Programs (OWCP) benefits for the period of August 1,1981, to July 1,1985. The existence of a compensable injury is not enough, however, to bring Cox within section 353.103(c)(1).

Be definition, separation as a result of a compensable injury excludes a valid removal for cause unrelated to the employee’s compensable injury.

See Federal Personnel Manual, ch. 353 at 2-6(a)(l) (1978). .Effective September 5, 1981, Cox was removed from his air traffic controller position for striking against the federal government. In his appeal from the removal, the board rejected his defense that he was sick and unable to work during the period of the strike.

Allmon v. Department of Transportation, FAA, 18 M.S.P.R. 569 , 572 (1984). That he later was able to obtain temporary workman’s compensation benefits for his disability does not override the previous adjudication that he was an active striker. The OWCP decision is not the result of an adversarial adjudication, and, in any event, does not bind the board.

Accord Miller v. U.S. Postal Service, 26 M.S.P.R. 210 , 213 (1985).

Because Cox relied solely on the OWCP decision and offered no evidence in support of his assertion that his removal was related to his disability, he failed to carry his burden of proof under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.56 (a)(2) to show that his separation resulted from or was substantially related to his compensable injury. Accordingly, the board correctly determined that it lacks jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.

* This opinion was originally issued in unpublished form on January 12, 1987. It is reissued for publication in response to a motion of the Merit Systems Protection Board filed February 9, 1987. A more detailed recitation of the facts may be found in the opinion of the board, 31 M.S.P.R. 148 (1986).

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1987: 11993: 11998: 12002: 12003: 12004: 12006: 22007: 12008: 12010: 12017: 119872026peak 2006 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Deonne R. New v. Department of Veterans Affairs142 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
  2. Linoski v. Department of Justice113 F. App'x 406 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
  3. Vivien L. Minor v. Merit Systems Protection Board819 F.2d 280 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
  4. Cynthia K. Walley v. Department of Veterans Affairs279 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
  5. Rda Construction Corp. v. United States132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017)
  6. Nelson v. United States Postal Service200 F. App'x 983 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

Most recent

  1. Rda Construction Corp. v. United States132 Fed. Cl. 732 (Fed. Cl. 2017)
  2. Payton v. Department of Homeland Security403 F. App'x 496 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
  3. Hebron v. United States Postal Service298 F. App'x 970 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
  4. Hinojosa v. United States Postal Service250 F. App'x 350 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
  5. Nelson v. United States Postal Service200 F. App'x 983 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
  6. Lester E. Gilbert v. Merit Systems Protection Board186 F. App'x 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list