Reeves v. Department of the Army

Court of Claims

Reeves v. Department of the Army

227 Ct. Cl. 704, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 211, 1981 WL 21416

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 24, 1981

DocketApp. No. 11-81

StatusPublished

This text of 227 Ct. Cl. 704 (Reeves v. Department of the Army) 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

Reeves v. Department of the Army, 227 Ct. Cl. 704, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 211, 1981 WL 21416 (cc 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

This appeal of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is governed by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, and is before the court on petitioner’s Rule 181 request that the appeal be referred to a trial judge. Petitioner advances several justifications for the suggested referral. All of his justifications are reducible to the propositions that (a) the evidentiary record fashioned at the administrative level is incomplete because of errors committeed by the MSPB hearing official and because of the emergence of new evidence, and (b) because the evidentiary record is incomplete, a trial judge of this court should preside over a de novo trial of petitioner’s claims.

Even assuming arguendo that proposition (a) is correct, we cannot agree with proposition (b). Congress has made clear that, under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the following is to be the general rule: "If the court determines that further evidence is necessary, it shall remand the case to the [MSPB] for further processing as appropriate.” S. [705]*705REP. NO. 95-969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 64, reprinted in [1978] U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 2723, 2786. Thus, in this case, if we determine that a hearing is necessary for the purpose of supplementing the administrative record with additional evidence, we would remand the case to the MSPB (rather than to our trial division) to conduct such a hearing.

it is therefore ordered that petitioner’s Rule 181 request is denied.

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

This appeal of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is governed by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, and is before the court on petitioner’s Rule 181 request that the appeal be referred to a trial judge. Petitioner advances several justifications for the suggested referral. All of his justifications are reducible to the propositions that (a) the evidentiary record fashioned at the administrative level is incomplete because of errors committeed by the MSPB hearing official and because of the emergence of new evidence, and (b) because the evidentiary record is incomplete, a trial judge of this court should preside over a de novo trial of petitioner’s claims.

Even assuming arguendo that proposition (a) is correct, we cannot agree with proposition (b). Congress has made clear that, under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the following is to be the general rule: "If the court determines that further evidence is necessary, it shall remand the case to the [MSPB] for further processing as appropriate.” S. [705]*705REP. NO. 95-969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 64, reprinted in [1978] U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 2723, 2786. Thus, in this case, if we determine that a hearing is necessary for the purpose of supplementing the administrative record with additional evidence, we would remand the case to the MSPB (rather than to our trial division) to conduct such a hearing.

it is therefore ordered that petitioner’s Rule 181 request is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 Ct. Cl. 704, 1981 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 211, 1981 WL 21416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-department-of-the-army-cc-1981.