In the 1984 case of Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether federal courts had jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) regarding disability retirement claims under civil service laws. The plaintiff, a former federal employee who was denied disability retirement benefits by both his employing agency and subsequently by MSPB, sought judicial review in district court which dismissed his claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision stating that it did have authority to conduct full reviews on such cases. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that while there is limited scope for judicial scrutiny over MSPB decisions concerning eligibility for disability retirement benefits under civil service laws; comprehensive fact-finding or de novo proceedings are not within their purview as per statute language and legislative history considerations. However, they also clarified that substantial procedural errors could be reviewed in district courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Linda v. Office of Personnel Management, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of 5 U.S.C. § 8347(c) was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress did not intend to preclude judicial review of all factual determinations made by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Instead, he believed it only intended to prevent courts from reevaluating medical evidence independently or substituting their judgment for OPM’s on matters involving complex medical facts. The justice also expressed concern about denying injured federal employees access to a full and fair hearing in court, especially when there is substantial evidence contradicting OPM's decision regarding disability retirement claims. In his view, such an expansive reading could potentially shield arbitrary or capricious agency actions from any form of judicial scrutiny.