Lexplug logoLexplug

Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management

Supreme Court of the United States
1985 U.S. LEXIS 77, 470 U.S. 768, 84 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1985)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statute providing that an administrative agency's decisions on disability claims are 'final and conclusive' bars judicial review of the agency's factual determinations but does not preclude judicial review of alleged legal and procedural errors.


Facts:

  • Wayne Lindahl was a civilian security guard at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard.
  • Lindahl suffered from acute and chronic bronchitis, which he alleged was aggravated by his workplace exposure to chemical irritants.
  • In September 1979, the Department of the Navy informed Lindahl that he would be retired because his physical condition prevented him from performing the full range of his duties.
  • Lindahl agreed with the Navy's assessment of his condition and did not contest his separation from service.
  • Lindahl subsequently applied for a disability retirement annuity from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
  • OPM denied Lindahl's claim, concluding that the evidence failed to establish a disability severe enough to prevent the performance of his duties.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) denied Wayne Lindahl's application for a disability retirement annuity.
  • Lindahl appealed OPM's decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which is an administrative review board.
  • The MSPB sustained OPM's denial of benefits.
  • Lindahl filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of Claims, a court of first instance for certain claims against the government, seeking judicial review of the MSPB decision.
  • After Congress passed the Federal Courts Improvement Act, Lindahl's case was transferred to the newly created U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc as an intermediate appellate court, dismissed Lindahl's appeal, holding that 5 U.S.C. § 8347(c) barred any judicial review.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Federal Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does 5 U.S.C. § 8347(c), stating that administrative decisions on federal disability retirement claims are 'final and conclusive,' bar judicial review only of the factual determinations of disability, or does it completely bar judicial review of any alleged legal and procedural errors?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Brennan

No. The finality provision of 5 U.S.C. § 8347(c) precludes judicial review only of the factual determinations of disability, not of legal and procedural errors. There is a strong presumption that Congress intends to allow judicial review of administrative action, which can only be overcome by 'clear and convincing evidence' of a contrary legislative intent. The language of § 8347(c) is ambiguous and can be read to bar review only of the factual 'questions of disability and dependency.' For decades, courts, under what is known as the 'Scroggins' standard, consistently interpreted the statute this way. The legislative history of a 1980 amendment to the statute shows that Congress was aware of this long-standing judicial interpretation and intended for it to continue. Furthermore, the Court held that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has direct appellate jurisdiction over these claims to promote judicial efficiency and avoid the wasteful, duplicative review that would occur if cases had to start in a trial court.


Dissenting - Justice White

Yes. The statute completely bars judicial review of OPM's decisions on voluntary disability retirement claims. The plain language of § 8347(c) is unambiguous in stating that OPM's decisions are 'final and conclusive and are not subject to review.' The majority's reliance on the legislative history of a later amendment is improper; that history, in fact, indicates that Congress believed the preclusion of review was absolute and was creating a very narrow, specific exception. By creating one explicit exception for involuntary mental disability cases, Congress reinforced that no other exceptions exist. The majority engages in a 'far-fetched reading of a reasonably clear statute' to reach its conclusion.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the strong presumption of judicial review over administrative agency actions, even in the face of statutory language suggesting finality. It formally adopted the 'Scroggins' standard, preserving a critical, albeit narrow, path for federal employees to challenge disability benefit denials based on legal or procedural grounds. By clarifying that the Federal Circuit has direct jurisdiction, the Court streamlined the review process, preventing inefficient, multi-layered litigation. The case serves as a key precedent for interpreting finality clauses in administrative law, ensuring agencies remain accountable for following the law, even when their factual findings are insulated from review.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management (1985)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"