Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02225/USCOURTS-ca13-16-02225-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Respondent
F. Allan Midyett
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

F. ALLAN MIDYETT,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2016-2225

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DA-1221-12-0554-W-2.

______________________ 

Decided: December 9, 2016

______________________ 

F. ALLAN MIDYETT, Fayetteville, AR, pro se.

JOSHUA A. MANDLEBAUM, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for the respondent. Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., 

FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-2225 Document: 33-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2016
2 MIDYETT v. DVA

Before PROST, Chief Judge, SCHALL, and STOLL, 

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Dr. F. Allan Midyett appeals a final decision of the 

Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board denied 

Dr. Midyett’s petition for review and affirmed the initial 

decision. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Care System of the Ozarks hired 

Dr. Midyett as a radiologist on November 2, 2010, pursuant to the Department of Veterans Affairs’ hiring authority under 38 U.S.C. § 7401(1). Dr. Midyett began a twoyear probationary period, starting on November 21, 2010, 

as a condition for his employment. 

In late 2011 and early 2012, the Chief of Radiology, 

Dr. Kathryn Witztum, and the Medical Center Director, 

Dr. Mark Enderle, oversaw a series of review procedures 

that culminated in the initiation of a Professional Standards Board to conduct a review of Dr. Midyett’s performance during his probationary period and make 

recommendations concerning whether Dr. Midyett should 

be retained or separated from federal service. This review 

was held due to allegations of performance deficiencies in 

clinical ability, skills, and knowledge. On February 21, 2012, the Professional Standards Board concluded 

that Dr. Midyett had a repetitive pattern of concerning 

conduct, including errors in reports posing lifethreatening harm to patients, and had provided substandard care. As a result, the VA discharged 

Dr. Midyett, effective April 6, 2012. 

On August 1, 2012, Dr. Midyett filed an individual 

right of action (“IRA”) appeal with the Board, claiming

Case: 16-2225 Document: 33-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2016
MIDYETT v. DVA 3

inter alia, retaliation for whistleblower disclosures.1 On 

March 8, 2013, the Administrative Judge dismissed 

Dr. Midyett’s IRA appeal without prejudice pending the 

Board’s decision in Day v. Department of Homeland 

Security, 119 M.S.P.R. 589 (2013), concerning the retroactivity of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act 

of 2012 (“WPEA”). After the Board’s decision in Day, 

Dr. Midyett’s IRA appeal was redocketed. 

On September 16, 2015, after conducting a three-day 

hearing, the AJ issued his initial decision. The AJ first 

determined that Dr. Midyett satisfied the minimum 

requirements for Board jurisdiction. Next, the AJ addressed the merits of Dr. Midyett’s whistleblower allegations, determining that Dr. Midyett was subjected to 

personnel actions within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A). The AJ further found that 

Dr. Midyett made protected disclosures and established 

by preponderant evidence that his protected disclosures 

were a contributing factor in some of the personnel ac-

 

1 In addition to Dr. Midyett’s IRA appeal, he filed 

two other appeals, one pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”) and another pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and 

Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”). Both 

appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Midyett v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. DA-4324-12-0568-I-1, 

2013 WL 3814561 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 8, 2013); Midyett v. 

Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, DA-3330-12-0569-I-1, 2014 WL 

5305516 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 29, 2014), aff’d, 594 Fed. App’x 

969 (2014). Dr. Midyett has also filed at least five civil 

actions asserting similar allegations in the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, all of 

which have been dismissed. See, e.g., Midyett v. Levy, No. 

5:14–CV–05016, 2015 WL 4251144, *1 (W.D. Ark. July 13, 

2015).

Case: 16-2225 Document: 33-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2016
4 MIDYETT v. DVA

tions at issue. The AJ determined, however, that the 

agency presented clear and convincing evidence that it 

would have taken the same personnel actions, even absent Dr. Midyett’s protected disclosures. Accordingly, the 

AJ denied Dr. Midyett’s request for corrective action. 

Dr. Midyett petitioned for review of the initial decision, asserting that the AJ made erroneous factual findings and failed to address his claims that the VA 

committed harmful procedural errors and violated his 

rights to due process in the process of his discharge. 

Dr. Midyett also asserted that new and material evidence 

was available that was unavailable when the record 

closed, despite his due diligence.

The Board denied the petition for review and affirmed 

the initial decision. Midyett v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 

No. DA-1221-12-0554-W-2, 2016 WL 3035543 (M.S.P.B. 

May 26, 2016). The Board held that the AJ’s failure to 

discuss Dr. Midyett’s due process and harmful procedural 

error claims did not warrant reversal of the initial decision because such “claims may not be heard in the context 

of an IRA appeal.” Id. ¶ 7 (citing Hugenberg v. Dep’t of 

Commerce, 120 M.S.P.R. 381, ¶ 24 (2013)). The Board 

further held that, assuming that the AJ made erroneous 

factual findings, these alleged errors were not prejudicial 

to Dr. Midyett’s substantive rights and did not provide a 

basis for reversing the initial decision. Id. ¶ 8. Finally, 

the Board considered Dr. Midyett’s purportedly new 

evidence and determined that it did not warrant a different outcome. Id. ¶ 17.

Dr. Midyett appealed to this court, and we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

We review decisions of the Board on a limited basis, 

setting aside Board actions, findings, or conclusions only 

if we find them to be “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

Case: 16-2225 Document: 33-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/09/2016
MIDYETT v. DVA 5

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 

(2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or 

regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by 

substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).

Dr. Midyett does not allege any errors of law or erroneous factual findings by the Board related to his whistleblower allegations. For example, he does not challenge 

the Board’s finding that the agency presented clear and 

convincing evidence that it would have taken the same 

personnel actions, even absent Dr. Midyett’s protected 

disclosures. Rather, Dr. Midyett reasserts that the VA 

violated his rights to due process and committed harmful 

procedural errors in the process of his discharge. 

This case involves review of an IRA appeal. In an IRA 

appeal, the Board’s scope of review is limited to the merits 

of the whistleblower allegations. See Kewley v. Dep’t of 

Health & Human Servs., 153 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 

1998); Kennington v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 456 Fed. App’x 

899, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that petitioner’s claims 

that the agency violated his rights to due process “do not 

fall within the scope of an IRA appeal, which is limited to 

personnel actions taken in reprisal for protected disclosures”). Thus, because Dr. Midyett’s claims—that the VA 

violated his rights to due process and committed harmful 

procedural errors—fall outside of the Board’s scope of 

review in an IRA appeal, the Board did not err by refusing 

to address these claims.

We have carefully considered Dr. Midyett’s remaining 

arguments and determined that they lack merit.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-2225 Document: 33-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/09/2016