Howie v. United States

Court of Claims

Howie v. United States

230 Ct. Cl. 924, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 225, 1982 WL 25277

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 23, 1982

DocketNo. 40-81C

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 Ct. Cl. 924 (Howie v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howie v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 924, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 225, 1982 WL 25277 (cc 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

per curiam:

This case comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Oral argument has been waived. Plaintiff was a civilian employee of the Department of the Army who resigned from his position effective October 22, 1977. In March 1979 he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (mspb) on the ground that his resignation was coerced and involuntary. The mspb’s field office ruled that the long delay in appealing could not be excused as beyond plaintiffs control.¹ Plaintiff sought review in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which transferred the case to this court.

Plaintiff cannot prevail. If he considered that his resignation involved an adverse action because of coercion or involuntariness triggering the resignation, he had to make a timely appeal to the mspb. Gratehouse v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 288, 296 (1975). His argument to the mspb and to us is that he could not file an earlier appeal because of his mental condition. But after considering his evidence of mental illness (mainly depression), and his earlier efforts to obtain reinstatement in his job, the mspb found his 17-month delay inexcusably long because (a) his depression was not so severe as to render him unable to discover and pursue his appeal rights, and (b) he was not diligent in discovering and pursuing those rights. There is more than substantial evidence to support these conclusions. The reports of claimant’s doctors, which are before us, do not show mental illness or depression of such a character that the mspb was compelled to find him disabled from proceeding with his claim of coercion and involuntariness. The administrative determination is therefore reasonable and must be accepted.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied, and the petition is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

per curiam:

This case comes before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Oral argument has been waived. Plaintiff was a civilian employee of the Department of the Army who resigned from his position effective October 22, 1977. In March 1979 he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (mspb) on the ground that his resignation was coerced and involuntary. The mspb’s field office ruled that the long delay in appealing could not be excused as beyond plaintiffs control.¹ Plaintiff sought review in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which transferred the case to this court.

Plaintiff cannot prevail. If he considered that his resignation involved an adverse action because of coercion or involuntariness triggering the resignation, he had to make a timely appeal to the mspb. Gratehouse v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 288, 296 (1975). His argument to the mspb and to us is that he could not file an earlier appeal because of his mental condition. But after considering his evidence of mental illness (mainly depression), and his earlier efforts to obtain reinstatement in his job, the mspb found his 17-month delay inexcusably long because (a) his depression was not so severe as to render him unable to discover and pursue his appeal rights, and (b) he was not diligent in discovering and pursuing those rights. There is more than substantial evidence to support these conclusions. The reports of claimant’s doctors, which are before us, do not show mental illness or depression of such a character that the mspb was compelled to find him disabled from proceeding with his claim of coercion and involuntariness. The administrative determination is therefore reasonable and must be accepted.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied, and the petition is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 Ct. Cl. 924, 1982 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 225, 1982 WL 25277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howie-v-united-states-cc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack