In February 1989, Andrew Fullman, a Pennsylvania postal worker, filed a claim for workers compensation after allegedly being injured on the job. The claim was approved. Fullman returned to work shortly thereafter, but on limited duty. On March 20 1989, Fullman got into an argument with another employee. Fullman said the employee pushed him, aggravating his previous injury. He then filed another workers comp claim. This time the claim was disapproved, based on testimony from co-workers who witnessed the incident.
Fullman appealed the denial, but in August the Department of Labor upheld it. In October 1989 the USPS notified Fullman he was being fired for filing a false claim, and placed him on unpaid leave. Three years later, after the APWU dropped its grievance on behalf of Fullman, he was finally terminated. For some reason the postal service failed to send Fullman his final Form 50, notifying him of his termination until 1996, 4 years later. The District Court that heard several of Fullman’s appeals notes that “Fullman spent much of the time between his removal from the Postal Service in 1989 and his receipt of the Form 50 in 1996 incarcerated on unrelated charges.”
Since that time Fullman has repeatedly filed appeals of his dismissal before federal and state courts and the EEOC. (He’s also filed suits against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections).
In 2000, the Federal District Court warned that “Although Fullman is entitled to appeal the decision of this court, he is cautioned that any effort to reconfigure his claims and commence further litigation in this court may subject him to sanctions.”
On September 5, 2000, Fullman filed a motion for summary judgment and declaratory judgment. On October 16, 2000, the Postal Service responded with its own motion for summary judgement. Finally, and hopefully for the last time, the court will deny all of Fullman’s multifaceted claims that his removal from the Postal Service in 1989 was based on unlawful discrimination and that he is entitled to relief.
The Court’s “hopefully for the last time” comment turned out to be wishful thinking, as Fullman’s repetitive appeals continued. Last week, however, the Appeals Court apparently lost patience with Fullman. Noting that he had filed eight more appeals last year, it told him he could no longer file appeals without the court’s permission in advance:
Fullman repeatedly asks the District Court to reevaluate previously decided cases based on what he terms â€œnew evidenceâ€ relating to what happened in 1989 or claims of alleged fraud or judicial bias. In 2010 alone, after we affirmed the District Courtâ€™s orders, Fullman filed eight such motions in the District Court. He has also involved the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by naming it as a defendant and an appellee but not actually making claims against it.
We do not disagree with the Appellees that Fullmanâ€™s claims have been numerous and without merit. For this reason, we grant their motion in part… Specifically, absent leave of this Court, Fullman is prohibited from further appellate court litigation raising claims identical or similar to those that have already been adjudicated against the United States Postal Service, the Postmaster General, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, federal officials or employees, or any federal agency related to (a) the resolution of Fullmanâ€™s 1989 workersâ€™ compensation claim in connection with an alleged work related injury; and/or (b) Fullmanâ€™s termination on March 20, 1989, by the Postal Service for filing a false workersâ€™ compensation claim; and/or (c) subsequent attempts by Fullman to obtain re-employment with the Postal Service. To the extent that the Appellees wish for similar relief in the District Court, they may apply there.