Background
Tracey Garland, a Legal Administrative Specialist, was removed from federal service in two thousand and sixteen due to major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and insomnia. She applied for disability retirement, but the Office of Personnel Management denied the claim, citing a lack of sufficient objective medical evidence to determine the extent of her impairment. The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the denial, finding that OPM had met its burden of production to rebut the Bruner presumption based on the absence of objective records.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the framework established in Bruner, Trevan, and Vanieken-Ryals. It held that while OPM may consider a lack of objective evidence when it has produced inconsistent objective evidence, it cannot meet its burden of production under Bruner by simply asserting a lack of objective evidence. The court emphasized that disqualifying evidence solely because it is subjective rather than objective is legal error. Since the Board relied exclusively on the lack of objective records to find OPM met its burden, the presumption of disability remained unrebutted, entitling Garland to benefits.
Because we hold an assertion of a lack of objective medical evidence does not on its own overcome the Bruner presumption, we reverse the Board’s final order.
Garland v. Office of Personnel Management, 2024-2291 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2026)
What it means going forward
Federal agencies and the Merit Systems Protection Board must now evaluate disability retirement claims without disqualifying subjective medical evidence from treating physicians. Claimants may rely on professional diagnoses based on patient descriptions to meet their burden of persuasion, and agencies must produce evidence inconsistent with the claim to rebut the Bruner presumption.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download