## Facts

- Melonie Clark, a Department of Defense civilian employee in Alabama, was covered by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) and had two minor children with her husband, Michael Clark.
- During a contentious custody situation, Michael went to the home of Melonie’s parents, where Melonie and the children were staying.
- An exchange of gunfire left Michael, Melonie, and both of Melonie’s parents dead; the children survived and reportedly witnessed events.
- Local investigators concluded Michael intentionally killed Melonie and her parents and then committed suicide; a child reportedly stated his father killed himself.
- Phillip E. Clark, as executor of Michael’s estate and custodian of the children, applied to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for the FERS Basic Employee Death Benefit (BEDB) payable to a covered employee’s “surviving spouse” under 5 U.S.C. § 8442(b).
- OPM denied the claim, determining that Michael killed Melonie and therefore could not receive death benefits stemming from her federal employment.
- Phillip appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); an administrative judge affirmed, and the full Board denied review, making the decision final.
- Phillip petitioned for review in the Federal Circuit.

## Issues

1. When 5 U.S.C. § 8442(b) is silent on whether a spouse who kills the covered employee (or the spouse’s estate) may receive the BEDB, may OPM apply state “slayer” principles to deny the benefit?
2. Was OPM’s finding that Michael killed Melonie supported by substantial evidence on administrative review?

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the MSPB’s final decision sustaining OPM’s denial of the BEDB.
- The court held that, given statutory silence in § 8442(b) on the “slayer” question, OPM permissibly relied on Alabama law’s principle that a person may not profit from his own wrongdoing to bar recovery by Michael’s estate.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Michael killed Melonie, based on the state investigation and related evidence in the record.
- Because the claim was asserted by Michael’s estate and depended on Michael’s status as “surviving spouse,” the estate could not recover if Michael was barred under the applicable slayer rule.

## Legal Principles

- When a federal benefits statute leaves a material eligibility question unanswered, an administering agency may consult and apply relevant state law principles to fill the gap, so long as doing so does not conflict with federal policy.
- Under state slayer principles, a person who unlawfully kills another is barred from benefiting from the victim’s death; the bar extends to claims asserted through the killer’s estate when entitlement is derivative of the killer’s rights.
- On review of MSPB decisions, factual determinations are upheld if supported by substantial evidence under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).

## Conclusion

The court upheld OPM’s denial of the FERS Basic Employee Death Benefit to the alleged killer’s estate, concluding that state slayer law could be applied to address statutory silence and that the administrative finding of the killing was supported by substantial evidence.


Clark v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 256 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001)