Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Jo Ann Lindley, Petitioner, v. Office of Personnel Management, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. - 895 F.2d 1420
Jan. 11, 1990
Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RICHARD MILLS, District Judge.*
BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge.
DECISION
Jo Ann Lindley appeals a decision of the full Merit Systems Protection Board (board), docket no. DA08318810634, denying her petition for review of the Administrative Judge's decision sustaining the Office of Personnel Management's decision that she was not entitled to survivor annuity benefits as a former spouse of Clyde O. Lindley. We affirm.
OPINION
The record shows that the board fully considered the facts and applied the proper law in this case.
Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. Sec. 831.622 (1988), Lindley is not entitled to a survivor annuity because her former husband retired after May 7, 1985. Even if her former husband had retired prior to that date, Lindley would not be entitled to survivor benefits because her divorce took place before September 14, 1978 and because her former husband's current spouse is entitled to receive the survivor annuity.
As Lindley has failed to establish new and material evidence or demonstrate an erroneous application or interpretation of the law, the board properly denied her appeal pursuant to 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1201.115 (1989).
Therefore, the board's decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, or obtained without procedures required by the applicable law. See Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed.Cir.1984).