Court Opinion

ID: 9940520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 18:00:35.30443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:57.711948
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                   MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

JEFFREY HAWKER,                                 DOCKET NUMBER
             Appellant,                         DC-1221-22-0006-W-1

             v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS                          DATE: February 13, 2024
  AFFAIRS,
            Agency.

        THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

      Elaine Fitch , Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the appellant.

      Amanda E. Shaw , Roanoke, Virginia, for the agency.

      Timothy M. O’Boyle , Esquire, Hampton, Virginia, for the agency.

                                      BEFORE

                          Cathy A. Harris, Vice Chairman
                           Raymond A. Limon, Member

                                  FINAL ORDER

      The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which
dismissed the appellant’s individual right of action (IRA) appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following
circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact;
1
   A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                    2

the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation
or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative
judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision
were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion,
and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material
evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due
diligence, was not available when the record closed.        Title 5 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115).             After fully
considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not
established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review.
Therefore, we DENY the petition for review. Except as expressly MODIFIED to
find that the appellant established exhaustion regarding his first two alleged
disclosures in his October 12, 2021 affidavit and failed to establish contributing
factor for several of his alleged disclosures through methods other than the
knowledge/timing test, we AFFIRM the initial decision.

                DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW
The appellant exhausted disclosures (1) and (2), but the administrative judge’s
contrary findings do not warrant reversing the initial decision.
      In response to the administrative judge’s order to establish Board
jurisdiction over his appeal, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 3, the appellant filed
an October 12, 2021 affidavit in which he claimed to have made the following
disclosures:
      (1) “concerns” regarding “studies or procedures being performed
          incorrectly” expressed to individuals in the radiology department;
      (2) “concern” regarding the safety of his supervisor’s performance of
          “some procedures” expressed to his supervisor;
      (3) his supervisor performed a carotid artery stent (CAS) without using a
          cerebral embolic protection device, which placed the patient at a
          significant risk of a stroke, made to the agency Office of Inspector
          General (OIG);
                                                                                    3

      (4) “multiple failures within the [radiology] department, patient safety
          issues, and studies performed that did not meet the standards of care,”
          made to an agency Human Resources Specialist; and
      (5) radiologists were performing procedures, such as CAS and transjugular
          intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPS), beyond their scopes and the
          scopes of the facility and staff, made to OIG.
IAF, Tab 5.
      In finding that the appellant failed to exhaust disclosures (1) and (2), the
administrative judge, citing, inter alia, Ward v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
981 F.2d 521, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1992), stated that to satisfy the exhaustion
requirement, the appellant must inform the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) of
the precise ground of his whistleblowing charge, giving OSC a sufficient basis to
pursue an investigation that might lead to corrective action. IAF, Tab 11, Initial
Decision (ID) at 9.     Based on the Board’s clarification of the substantive
requirements of exhaustion in Chambers v. Department of Homeland Security,
2022 MSPB 8, ¶¶ 10-11, which was issued after the initial decision, we agree
with the appellant’s argument on review that such requirements are met when an
appellant has provided OSC with sufficient basis to pursue an investigation. Id.,
¶ 10; Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 3 at 15.        The Board also stated in
Chambers that its jurisdiction over an IRA appeal is limited to those issues that
have been previously raised with OSC. 2022 MSPB 8, ¶ 10. An appellant may
demonstrate exhaustion through his initial OSC complaint or correspondence with
OSC, other sufficiently reliable evidence such as an affidavit or declaration
attesting that he raised with OSC the substance of the facts in his Board appeal,
or unrebutted statements to that effect on a certified initial appeal form.      Id.,
¶ 11 & n.7.
      Applying the Chambers standard, we find that disclosures (1) and (2) were
exhausted with OSC as evidenced by OSC’s August 2021 close-out letter. The
letter stated that the appellant alleged that he “discussed [his] concerns about [his
supervisor’s] proficiency and perceived lack of training with Imaging Services
                                                                                       4

staff.” IAF, Tab 1 at 16. As the appellant’s supervisor was the Chief of Imaging
Service and in the radiology department, id. at 41; Hawker v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-14-0802-W-1, Initial Appeal File
(0802 IAF), Tab 1 at 13, the inclusion of this alleged disclosure in the close-out
letter, which was broad enough to encompass both disclosures (1) and (2),
demonstrates that the appellant gave OSC a sufficient basis to pursue an
investigation with a scope covering those disclosures.
      However, because we agree with the administrative judge that the
appellant’s alleged disclosures failed to support a nonfrivolous allegation of
Board jurisdiction, 2 the administrative judge’s findings that the appellant failed to
establish exhaustion for disclosures (1) and (2) did not prejudice the appellant’s
substantive rights and provide no basis for reversing the initial decision.
Panter v. Department of the Air Force, 22 M.S.P.R. 281, 282 (1984).

The appellant failed to nonfrivolously allege contributing factor for disclosures
(1), (3), (4), and (5) through methods other than the knowledge/timing test.
      We also agree with the administrative judge’s findings supporting the
conclusion that, for disclosures (1), (3), (4), and (5), the appellant failed to
2
  The appellant’s assertion that the administrative judge dismissed the appeal due to the
appellant’s failure to file his original OSC complaint on appeal, PFR File, Tab 3
at 17-18, is incorrect, as the administrative judge located the appellant’s original OSC
complaint in the record of one of the appellant’s prior Board appeals, incorporated it
into his analysis, ID at 11 & n.10, 12 & n.11, 13, 17 n.16, 19, 21 n.19, and dismissed
the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on other grounds. We also find unpersuasive the
appellant’s argument, citing Hessami v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 979 F.3d
1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2020), that the administrative judge’s review of the evidence “in
support of” his allegations constituted reversible error. PFR File, Tab 3 at 22-23.
Hessami states that the Board may not dismiss a whistleblower reprisal appeal on
jurisdictional grounds based on a summary review of the evidence on the merits, or by
crediting the agency’s interpretation of the evidence as to whether an appellant made a
prima facie case. 979 F.3d at 1368-69. It is apparent from the administrative judge’s
analysis that he found that the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation of
jurisdiction based on the appellant’s October 12, 2021 affidavit—the document the
appellant submitted in response to the order to establish jurisdiction—and not based on
a summary review of the evidence on the merits or by crediting the agency’s
interpretation of the evidence. ID at 15-21. The administrative judge’s denial of
jurisdiction thus did not violate the proscriptions in Hessami.
                                                                                  5

nonfrivolously allege contributing factor through the knowledge/timing test. ID
at 15-16, 18, 20, 21.         However, if the appellant fails to satisfy the
knowledge/timing test, the administrative judge is required to consider whether
the appellant proved contributing factor through other evidence, such as that
pertaining to the strength or weakness of the agency’s reasons for taking the
personnel action, whether the whistleblowing or protected activity was personally
directed at the proposing or deciding officials, and whether these individuals had
a desire or motive to retaliate against the appellant.       Pridgen v. Office of
Management and Budget, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶ 65. The administrative judge did not
address these other methods, but even when considered, the appellant still failed
to establish contributing factor.
      The agency’s reasons for its personnel actions—which all stemmed from
the appellant’s lack of competence—were strong, as shown by evidence the
appellant filed on appeal.          In addition to two unsatisfactory performance
appraisals and peer reviews—mostly performed by “outside radiologists”—
confirming quality problems in the appellant’s work, IAF, Tab 1 at 40-41, 43-44,
51-68; 0802 IAF, Tab 1 at 22, the appellant stated in his OSC complaint that
during his second week of employment, which was before he engaged in any
whistleblowing activity, IAF, Tab 1 at 16, 99, his supervisor and the Chief of
Staff suggested that he needed additional training and that the Chief of Staff told
him that it would be better if he “left on [his] own . . . as opposed to being
terminated later.” 0802 IAF, Tab 1 at 13. This conversation appears to have been
confirmed by the appellant’s supervisor’s notation on the appellant’s performance
appraisal stating that on May 6, 2013, the supervisor discussed the appellant’s
performance and “poor procedural skills and store of knowledge” with the Chief
of Staff. IAF, Tab 1 at 40. Further, the appellant stated in his OSC complaint
that in June 2013, which was prior to any of the alleged whistleblowing activity,
his supervisor said that the appellant did not bring the level of expertise the
agency had hoped for when they hired him. 0802 IAF, Tab 1 at 13.
                                                                                        6

      For disclosures (1) and (4) regarding unidentified “studies,” “procedures,”
“failures,” and “issues,” because the appellant failed to specify what was
disclosed, there is no indication that the appellant’s whistleblowing activity was
personally directed at the officials responsible for the alleged personnel actions.
Nor is there any indication that those officials had a motive to retaliate against
him because the disclosures, for instance, could have reflected negatively on the
radiology department or medical center. Accordingly, considering methods for
establishing contributing factor other than the knowledge/timing test, the
appellant still failed to establish contributing factor for disclosures (1) and (4).
      On the other hand, disclosure (3), which was made to OIG and addressed
the appellant’s supervisor’s allegedly unsafe performance of a CAS, was
personally directed at the appellant’s supervisor, who it can be inferred could
have had a motive to retaliate against the appellant because of it.              Further,
disclosure (5), which was also made to OIG and addressed radiologists
performing CAS and TIPS beyond their scopes, though not personally directed at
any named individuals in the allegation, could have created a motive to retaliate
against the appellant in his supervisor as manager of the radiology department
and perhaps even in the Chief of Staff and Director . However, considering the
totality of the evidence, including the absence of any indication or allegation that
those officials knew of his OIG disclosures when they took the alleged personnel
actions, the strength of the agency’s reasons for its personnel actions, and the fact
that—as    evidenced     by    the   appellant’s     own   admissions—the       agency’s
identification of the appellant’s performance issues well preceded any of his
alleged disclosures, the appellant also failed, under methods for establishing
contributing factor other than the knowledge/timing test, to nonfrivolously allege
contributing factor for disclosures (3) and (5). 3

3
  The appellant filed a motion after the close of the record on review requesting leave to
file an additional pleading explaining how two Board decisions issued after he filed his
petition for review—Skarada v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 2022 MSPB 17, and
Wilson v. Department of Veterans Affairs , 2022 MSPB 7—support his arguments. PFR
                                                                                      7

                         NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4
      The initial decision, as supplemented by this Final Order, constitutes the
Board’s final decision in this matter.      5 C.F.R. § 1201.113.      You may obtain
review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of
your claims determines the time limit for seeking such review and the appropriate
forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following
summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not
provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and
the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule
regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of
this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your
claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file
within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your
chosen forum.
      Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review
below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions
about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you
should contact that forum for more information.

      (1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking
judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.
File, Tab 8. In support of his motion, he cites the Board’s discussions relating to
whether the appellants in those cases reasonably believed they disclosed evidence of a
substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Id. at 5 (citing Skarada,
2022 MSPB 17, ¶ 12 n.3; Wilson, 2022 MSPB 7, ¶ 40). Once the record closes on
review, no additional evidence or argument will be accepted unless it is new and
material and was not readily available before the record closed.                5 C.F.R.
§ 1201.114(k). We considered Skarada, Wilson, and other recent Board decisions in
whistleblower reprisal appeals, and fail to discern how they present a reason to disturb
the initial decision. Because our review of those cases does not show a need for any
additional pleadings, the appellant’s motion is denied.
4
  Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated
the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the
Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.
                                                                                         8

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court
within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision.                5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(A).
      If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal   Circuit,   you   must   submit   your   petition    to   the   court    at   the
following address:
                              U.S. Court of Appeals
                              for the Federal Circuit
                             717 Madison Place, N.W.
                             Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.
      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

      (2) Judicial   or    EEOC    review    of   cases      involving   a   claim      of
discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you
were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action
was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain
judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination
claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you
receive this decision.      5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems
Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,
                                                                                  9

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative
receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be
entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any
requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security.        See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.
      Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective
websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
      Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding
all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive
this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,
and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file
with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives
this decision.
      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the
address of the EEOC is:
                         Office of Federal Operations
                  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                               P.O. Box 77960
                          Washington, D.C. 20013

      If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or
by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:
                         Office of Federal Operations
                  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                              131 M Street, N.E.
                                Suite 5SW12G
                          Washington, D.C. 20507
                                                                                     10

      (3) Judicial    review     pursuant    to   the    Whistleblower      Protection
Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised
claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or
other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).
If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s
disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section
2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i),
(B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of
competent jurisdiction. 5   The court of appeals must receive your petition for
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.               5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(b)(1)(B).
      If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the
following address:
                                U.S. Court of Appeals
                                for the Federal Circuit
                               717 Madison Place, N.W.
                               Washington, D.C. 20439

      Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular
relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is
contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.

5
   The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain
whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on
December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on
July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction.
The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195,
132 Stat. 1510.
                                                                             11

      If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at
http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation
for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The
Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that
any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
      Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their
respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below:
      http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

FOR THE BOARD:                        ______________________________
                                      Gina K. Grippando
                                      Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.