LAU v. MSPB , No. 22-1289 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-1289 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 05/31/2022 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ KIM LAU, Petitioner v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Intervenor ______________________ 2022-1289 ______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DE-1221-21-0300-W-1. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The Merit Systems Protection Board moves to vacate its final decision and to remand this case for further Case: 22-1289 Document: 26 Page: 2 2 Filed: 05/31/2022 LAU v. MSPB adjudication so that “the administrative judge can reevaluate whether [petitioner] met the jurisdictional requirements for an [individual right of action] appeal.” Mot. at 11. Among other things, the Board argues that remand is warranted to allow the administrative judge in the first instance to consider Board precedent holding that disclosures about a private organization that administers a government program may be protected. Kim Lau consents to the motion. The Department of Health and Human Services opposes. The Board and Dr. Lau reply. It is within this court’s discretion to remand to allow the agency to reconsider its previous position. See SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Without drawing any conclusions regarding the merits of the parties’ arguments, the court agrees that remand here could preserve party and judicial resources, and therefore grants the motion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Board to reconsider its decision consistent with the motion and this order. (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT May 31, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 31, 2022
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
