Background
Val McGowan, a veteran employed as a medical support assistant, applied for disability retirement benefits under the Federal Employees Retirement System. He alleged that post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his naval service in the eighteen-eighties rendered him unable to perform his duties. The Office of Personnel Management denied his application, finding his evidence insufficient to establish a disabling condition. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the denial, citing credibility issues regarding McGowan’s testimony about the origin of his condition and a lack of objective medical evidence.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board’s decision under a limited standard, prohibiting factual review of the disability determination itself. The court found no legal error in the Board’s analysis of the medical evidence. The Board did not categorically reject subjective evidence but rather weighed it against credibility findings derived from McGowan’s inconsistent testimony about a specific naval incident. The court also determined that McGowan forfeited his argument regarding the admission of new evidence by failing to object specifically during the hearing.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the limited scope of judicial review over federal disability retirement denials and underscores the importance of preserving objections to evidentiary rulings during administrative hearings.