On April 22, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Garland v. OPM, ___ F.4th ____, No. 2024-2291. The court overturned the denial of FERS disability retirement to GEL client Tracey Garland by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, a denial previously upheld by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Ms. Garland was a former OPM employee who had been removed for medical inability to perform; even though OPM found grounds to fire her for medical inability to perform. Normally, federal employee applicants for disability retirement have the burden of proof to demonstrate their eligibility for disability retirement benefits. Under the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bruner v. OPM, 996 F.2d 290 (Fed.Cir. 1993), federal retirement applicants removed for medical inability to perform are entitled to a rebuttable presumption (the ‘Bruner presumption’) in favor of being granted disability retirement. In Ms. Garland’s case, OPM denied Ms. Garland’s application for disability retirement, claiming to rebut the Bruner presumption by asserting that Ms. Garland had allegedly not produced any ‘objective’ evidence showing disability; OPM instead characterized Ms. Garland’s psychological evidence as ‘subjective.’ The MSPB later affirmed OPM’s denial.
The Federal Circuit, however, reversed, and awarded Ms. Garland her disability retirement. In its decision, the Garland court found that “OPM may not satisfy its burden of production under Bruner by simply asserting a lack of objective medical evidence,” and held that “OPM cannot ‘meet its burden of producing sufficient evidence to support a finding that the requirements’ for disability retirement are not met by the claimant, and thus overcome the Bruner presumption, by simply asserting the evidence provided by the claimant in a disability retirement application is deficient ‘because it lacks so-called ‘objective’ measures.” While OPM may cite lack of objective medical evidence as part of a Bruner rebuttal, that argument cannot be the sole basis for OPM’ argument. The Garland court further found that OPM had committed legal error in improperly failing to give weight to psychiatric evidence provided by Ms. Garland’s doctor. As a result, the Federal Circuit found that OPM had failed to meet its burden of rebutting Ms. Garland’s presumption of disability under Bruner due to her removal for medical inability to perform, reversing the MSPB ‘s decision and finding Ms. Garland entitled to disability retirement benefits. The Garland decision sets new precedent that will make it easier for federal employees removed for medical inability to perform to receive their disability retirement benefits.
Ms. Garland was represented at oral argument before the Federal Circuit by Gilbert Employment Law, P.C. Partners Christopher H. Bonk and Kevin L. Owen; on the brief were GEL Counsel Andrew J. Perlmutter, as well as GEL Associate William C. Schubert (who assisted in Ms. Garland’s representation as a law clerk, prior to his recent admission to the bar).
If you are a current or former federal employee seeking legal advice on federal employee retirement issues, consider contacting Gilbert Employment Law, P.C. to request an initial consultation.