Pitsker v. Office of Personnel Mgmt.

• Decision Date: 15 December 2000
• Parties: (Fed. Cir. 2000) VERNON G. PITSKER, Petitioner, and RICHARD C. ROGERS, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent. 99-3462, -3467 DECIDED:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

Page 1378

234 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

VERNON G. PITSKER, Petitioner and RICHARD C. ROGERS, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

99-3462, -3467

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DECIDED: December 15, 2000

Appealed from: Merit Systems Protection Board

David U. Fierst, Stein, Mitchell & Mezines, of Washington, DC, argued for petitioners.

Domenique Kirchner, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. With her on the brief were David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; andBryant G. Snee, Assistant Director.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, ^* and RADER, Circuit Judge.

MAYER, Chief Judge.

Vernon G. Pitsker and Richard C. Rogers appeal the final decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board in Docket No. SF-0831-97-0822-I-1 (Pitsker) and DA-0831-97-0094-R-1 (Rogers). Because the board's decisions were based on an error in the interpretation of the governing statute, we reverse and remand for recalculation of the petitioners' retirement annuities at a higher rate.

Background

This case presents the question of whether federal law enforcement officers (LEOs) who retire on disability before they reach fifty years of age are entitled to receive annuities computed under 5 U.S.C. § 8339(d)(1) (1994), rather than under 5 U.S.C.§ 8339(g) (1994). Pitsker and Rogers are former LEOs who retired on disability before they reached age fifty, and applied to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for enhanced disability benefits under 5 U.S.C. § 8339(d)(1). ¹ In its initial and reconsideration decisions, OPM denied their applications based on its interpretation of the statute that LEOs must be at least fifty years old at the time of separation to receive enhanced disability payments. Pitsker and Rogers appealed to the board.

The board affirmed OPM's decision denying Pitsker the special annuity computation and denied a petition for further review and consideration by the full board. The board initially reversed OPM's decision denying Rogers' application, see 77 M.S.P.R. 620 (1998), but it later reversed itself and sustained the decision, see 83 M.S.P.R. 154 (1999). The board deferred to OPM's "reasonable" interpretation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 8337(a) and 8339(d). Id. at 165-66. It noted that section 8337(a) says that a disability retirement annuity is computed under section 8339(g), "unless the employee or Member is eligible for a higher annuity computed under section 8339(a)-(e), (n) or (q)." 5 U.S.C. § 8337(a) (1994) (emphasis added). The board held that the commonly understood meaning of "is eligible for" is "meets the qualifications for," and that the statute restricts eligibility for enhanced disability payments to those LEOs who meet the minimum age and service requirements for immediate retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336(c), fifty years of age with twenty years of service. 83 M.S.P.R. at 162-63.

Rogers' and Pitsker's petitions for review were consolidated here. They argue that the board erred because OPM's interpretation is unreasonable and contrary to legislative intent. They assert that "[t]he genesis of OPM's error is the erroneous belief that the phrase 'eligible for a higher annuity' as used in 5 U.S.C. § 8337(a) to designate the disabled employees who should receive enhanced disability benefits is synonymous with 'entitled to an annuity' in § 8336(c) to designate retirees who should receive enhanced retirement benefits." They argue that courts recognize that "eligible," as used in other federal statutes, means member of a class, but not necessarily full compliance with all criteria; thus, OPM's interpretation of "eligible" is contrary to commonly accepted statutory interpretation.

Rogers and Pitsker also argue that an LEO who has twenty years of service and reaches fifty years of age would never choose a disability retirement because it places certain restrictions on him, such as annual physicals and a limitation on earnings. They emphasize that as LEOs, they were required to contribute a larger amount toward their retirement than other government employees, which they never will be able to recover as other LEOs do through enhanced retirement benefits. They infer that Congress must have intended LEOs to have a higher level of benefits than other federal employees if they become disabled. OPM responds that if this was Congress' intent, it could have said so by referencing section 8339(d) in section 8339(g), just as it provided for an enhanced annuity computation for the LEOs of the legislative branch by referencing section 8339(q).

Discussion

Under our statutory standard of review of a decision of the board, we are required to affirm unless the petitioner proves that the decision is "(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without adherence to procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence." 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (1994); seeHayes v. Dep't of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Judicial review of federal disability determinations is limited to determining whether "there has been a substantial departure from important procedural rights, a misconstruction of the governing legislation, or some like error 'going to the heart of the administrative determination.'" Lindahl v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 470 U.S. 768, 791 (1985) (quoting Scroggins v. United States, 397 F.2d 295, 297 (Ct. Cl. 1968)). "We review this decision to determine whether the agency misconstrued the governing legislation." Balick v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 85 F.3d 586, 588 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Statutory interpretation is a question of law which we review de novo. See Rosete v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 48 F.3d 514, 517 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

A court does not fulfill its duty to "say what the law is" by merely agreeing to an agency's interpretation of the statutory provision at issue if it is "reasonable." See Timex V.I., Inc. v. United States, 157 F.3d 879, 881 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)). "[W]e must first carefully investigate the matter to determine whether Congress's purpose and intent on the question at issue is judicially ascertainable." Id. (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)). "If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect." Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.9; see also Skinner v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1571, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "All statutes must be construed in the light of their purpose." Haggar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 389, 394 (1940).

"To discern Congress' intent we examine the explicit statutory language and the structure and purpose of the statute." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133, 138 (1990). Thus, we must "find that interpretation which can most fairly be said to be imbedded in the statute, in the sense of being most harmonious with its scheme and with the general purposes that Congress manifested." NLRB v. Lion Oil Co., 352 U.S. 282, 297 (1957). "[W]e look not only to the particular statutory language, but to the design of the statute as a whole and to its object and policy." Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 158 (1990).

Retirement for federal employees, including LEOs, is provided for under 5 U.S.C. § 8336 for "Immediate retirement," section 8335 for "Mandatory separation," and section 8337 for "Disability retirement." The annuity calculations for retiring employees are provided for under 5 U.S.C. § 8339.

OPM interprets section 8337(a) as providing an increased annuity for LEOs only if the employee satisfies the minimum age and service requirements for immediate retirement under 5 U.S.C. § 8336(c). In other words, OPM would require that disabled LEOs retiring on disability under section 8337(a) satisfy the retirement-specific requirements of both section 8337(a) for disability retirement and section 8336(c) for immediate retirement to receive an enhanced annuity under section 8339(d)(1). While OPM's interpretation may make sense on its face, a careful reading of the statute and its attendant history reveals a different meaning.

The structure of the statute is complex, with sections relating to disability benefits interspersed among and cross-referenced to the sections relating to retirement and survivor benefits. While federal employees are generally entitled to a retirement annuity at age fifty-five after thirty years of service or at age sixty after twenty years of service,see 5 U.S.C. § 8336(a) and (b), LEOs are entitled to a retirement annuity at age fifty after twenty years of service, see id. § 8336(c). Not only are LEOs entitled to retire at an earlier age, the benefits are more generous than for other federal employees. Compare section 8339(a) with section 8339(d). To fund these more generous benefits, Congress requires that a higher percentage of an LEO's salary be withheld. Most federal employees pay seven percent of their salary into the federal benefits fund, but LEOs pay seven and a half percent. See 5 U.S.C. § 8334(c) (1994). OPM's regulations provide that this additional withholding is not refundable in the event the LEO does not receive enhanced disability benefits. See 5 C.F.R. § 831.907(d) (1999); Rogers, 83 M.S.P.R. at 161.

Congress passed the preferential retirement provisions to make the federal law enforcement corps a career service composed of young men and women capable of meeting the stringent physical requirements of law enforcement and performing at peak efficiency. See Felzien v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 930 F.2d 898, 901 (Fed. Cir. 1991);see also Johnson v. Mayor of Baltimore, 472 U.S. 353, 364-65 (1985); S. Rep. No. 948, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 2...