# Robyn Cohen McCarthy v. Department of Health and Human Services

> Merit Systems Protection Board · June 27, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10452833

## Case

- **Court:** Merit Systems Protection Board
- **Decided:** June 27, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10452833

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

ROBYN J. COHEN MCCARTHY, DOCKET NUMBER
Appellant, AT-0752-18-0742-I-1

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND DATE: June 27, 2024
HUMAN SERVICES,
Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Randy A. Fleischer , Esquire, Plantation, Florida, for the appellant.

Robert L. Thomas , Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the agency.

Laura VanderLaan , Esquire, Kansas City, Missouri, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman
Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman
Henry J. Kerner, Member*

*Member Kerner did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

FINAL ORDER

The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, the

1
A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
2

appellant’s petition for review is DISMISSED as untimely filed without good
cause shown. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e), (g).

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The appellant filed a petition for review with the Board on July 24, 2019,
but did not reference the docket number for her case. Petition for review (PFR)
File, Tab 1. That same day, the Clerk of the Board attempted to contact the
appellant by phone to clarify the intent of her submission and to determine
whether the appellant intended her filing as a petition for review of the
administrative judge’s November 16, 2018 initial decision in this appeal.
PFR File, Tab 2 at 1 n.1. The appellant contacted the Clerk’s office on
July 26, 2019, and confirmed that she intended her filing as a petition for review
of the initial decision in this appeal. Id. On July 30, 2019, the Clerk of the Board
issued an acknowledgment letter informing the appellant that her petition for
review was untimely and that she must submit a “Motion to Accept Filing as
Timely or to Waive Time Limit” either by an affidavit or a statement signed
under penalty of perjury. Id. at 2-3. A blank sample motion was attached to the
acknowledgment letter. Id. at 6-8. The acknowledgment letter further stated that
the appellant’s motion must be submitted on or before August 13, 2019. Id. at 2.
The acknowledgment letter informed the appellant that she must show good cause
for the Board to waive her untimeliness, and instructed her on how to do so. Id.
at 2, 7. The appellant has not filed a motion to accept her untimely petition for
review or to waive the time limit.
The Board’s regulations provide that a petition for review must be filed
within 35 days after the date of issuance of the initial decision or, if the party
shows she received the initial decision more than 5 days after it was issued,
within 30 days of her receipt of the decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e). The Board
will waive the filing deadline for a petition for review only upon a showing of
good cause for the untimely filing. Palermo v. Department of the Navy,
3

120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4 (2014); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(g). The party who submits an
untimely petition for review has the burden of establishing good cause for the
untimely filing by showing that she exercised due diligence or ordinary prudence
under the particular circumstances of the case. Palermo, 120 M.S.P.R. 694, ¶ 4.
To determine whether a party has shown good cause, the Board will consider the
length of the delay, the reasonableness of her excuse and the party’s showing of
due diligence, whether she is proceeding pro se, and whether she has presented
evidence of the existence of circumstances beyond her control that affected her
ability to comply with the time limits or of unavoidable casualty or misfortune
that similarly shows a causal relationship to her inability to timely file her
petition. Id.
As noted in the petition for review acknowledgement letter, the finality
date of the initial decision was December 21, 2018, so the appellant’s petition for
review would have been due that day, at the latest. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.114(e);
see Initial Appeal File, Tab 50, Initial Decision at 6; PFR File, Tab 2 at 2.
Therefore, the appellant’s July 24, 2019 petition for review was filed 214 days
after the filing deadline. The Board has regularly held that such a delay is not
minimal. See Wright v. Department of the Treasury, 113 M.S.P.R. 124, ¶ 8
(2010) (concluding that an 11-day delay is not minimal); Scott v. Social Security
Administration, 110 M.S.P.R. 92, ¶¶ 8, 10 (2008) (finding no good cause for an
unexplained 11-day delay); Allen v. Office of Personnel Management,
97 M.S.P.R. 665, ¶¶ 8, 10 (2004) (declining to excuse a pro se appellant’s 14-day,
unexplained delay in filing a petition for review); Crozier v. Department of
Transportation, 93 M.S.P.R. 438, ¶ 7 (2003) (noting that a 13-day delay in filing
is not minimal). Additionally, despite being afforded the opportunity to do so,
the appellant has not offered any explanation for her delay in filing.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as untimely filed. This is
the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board regarding the timeliness
4

of the petition for review. The initial decision remains the final decision of the
Board regarding the appellant’s constructive suspension appeal. 2

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 3
You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By
statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).
Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit
Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most
appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a
statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their
jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should
immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all
filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time
limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.
Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
2
In her petition for review, the appellant references a purported whistleblower reprisal
claim and refers to an Office of Special Counsel (OSC) complaint file number.
PFR File, Tab 1 at 2, 5. The appellant’s reprisal for whistleblowing claim may fall
under the purview of OSC to investigate, and the appellant may have the right to file an
individual right of action (IRA) appeal with the Board after exhausting her
administrative remedies before OSC. In this Final Order, the Board makes no
determination regarding the jurisdiction or the merits concerning any potential IRA
appeal.
3
Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions to provide a comprehensive
summary of all available review options. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot
advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
5

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
6

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
Office of Federal Operations
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, N.E.
Suite 5SW12G
Washington, D.C. 20507
7

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in
section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)
(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
8

Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________
Gina K. Grippando
Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10452833. Public record. Not legal advice.