Court Opinion

ID: 9893977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 14:01:28.467207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:57.651299
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1900   Document: 46     Page: 1    Filed: 10/31/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  JAY P. GINSBERG,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

      DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                   Respondent
             ______________________

                       2022-1900
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. AT-1221-21-0116-W-1.
                 ______________________

                Decided: October 31, 2023
                 ______________________

    SHANNON POLVI, Cromer Babb Porter Hicks, LLC, Co-
 lumbia, SC, argued for petitioner.

     LIRIDONA SINANI, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
 Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
 ton, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by BRIAN
 M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M.
 MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

  Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1900     Document: 46     Page: 2    Filed: 10/31/2023

 2                                            GINSBERG v. DVA

 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
    Dr. Jay P. Ginsberg appeals the decision of the Merit
 Systems Protection Board affirming the Department of
 Veterans Affairs’ personnel actions related to his Research
 Health Scientist position. Because substantial evidence
 supports the Board’s finding, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
     Dr. Ginsberg began his employment with the Depart-
 ment of Veterans Affairs (VA) in the Research Department
 of the Dorn VA Medical Center as a Psychologist in
 March 2004 with a term appointment of two years. His ti-
 tle was corrected to Research Health Scientist and his ap-
 pointment was extended multiple times until his last
 appointment, which had a Not To Exceed (NTE) date of De-
 cember 2019. During Dr. Ginsberg’s last appointment, he
 was working on a research project that was initially
 awarded to him and Dr. James Burch, with both being
 named as Co-Principal Investigators.
     Concurrently, in March 2009, Dr. Ginsberg was ap-
 pointed to a Clinical Psychologist-Neuropsychologist posi-
 tion in the Transition and Care Management Service at the
 Dorn VA Medical Center. In 2018, Dr. Ginsberg’s clinical
 privileges were suspended. In May 2019, the VA removed
 Dr. Ginsberg from his clinical position for (1) failure to en-
 ter patient progress notes into the Computerized Patient
 Reporting System and (2) failure to perform acceptable
 standard of practice. Dr. Ginsberg appealed his removal to
 the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting that (1) he
 had regularly made protected disclosures and complaints
 to the VA regarding issues with the credentialing and per-
 formance review standards and the reporting system; and
 (2) his removal was retaliation for his protected disclo-
 sures. The Board denied Dr. Ginsberg’s request for correc-
 tive action. Ginsberg v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. AT-
 1221-19-0529-W-1, 2020 WL 1508133 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 23,
 2020). On appeal, we affirmed the Board’s decision.
Case: 22-1900      Document: 46    Page: 3    Filed: 10/31/2023

 GINSBERG v. DVA                                            3

 Ginsberg v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 844 F. App’x 365
 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
      The loss of Dr. Ginsberg’s clinical privileges, however,
 triggered a sequence of events relating to his research po-
 sition. At this time, Dr. Ginsberg was working on a re-
 search project that was awarded to him and Dr. James
 Burch, with both being named as Co-Principal Investiga-
 tors. Dr. David Omura, Director of the Dorn VA Medical
 Center, notified Dr. Kathlyn Haddock, Associate Chief of
 Staff who oversaw Dr. Ginsberg’s research work, that
 Dr. Ginsberg’s clinical privileges had been suspended.
 Dr. Haddock then notified the Dorn VA Medical Center In-
 stitutional Review Board (IRB) of this change. In August
 2018, the IRB voted to recommend changing the scope of
 Dr. Ginsberg’s role to prevent him from accessing patient
 and subject data. Subsequently, in November 2019,
 Dr. Ginsberg’s title on the project was changed from Co-
 Principal Investigator to Co-Investigator, and his name
 was removed from the research grant.
     In October 2019, Dr. Ginsberg requested bridge fund-
 ing for his research project for six months after Decem-
 ber 31, 2019, his NTE date. Bridge funding is a six-month
 extension of salary following a project’s end date that al-
 lows the project leaders to complete pending research
 items. Dr. Haddock contacted the Office of Research and
 Development (ORD) inquiring whether Dr. Ginsberg was
 eligible for such funding and was notified that Dr. Gins-
 berg was ineligible under the ORD Program Guide
 1200.15, because such funding was only awarded to princi-
 pal investigators who held at least a 5/8ths appointment, 1
 which Dr. Ginsberg no longer held after being removed

     1    VA appointments are represented in eighths,
 where each eighth represents five hours per week. Accord-
 ingly, 5/8ths represents a VA appointment of 25 hours per
 week.
Case: 22-1900    Document: 46      Page: 4    Filed: 10/31/2023

 4                                           GINSBERG v. DVA

 from his clinical position. Dr. Ginsberg’s appointment as a
 Research Health Scientist ended on his NTE date of De-
 cember 31, 2019.
      Dr. Ginsberg filed an individual right of action (IRA)
 appeal to the Board under the Whistleblower Protection
 Act, asserting that the agency retaliated against him for
 (1) disclosing that the agency’s credentialing and perfor-
 mance review standards for its clinical practice were im-
 proper; (2) filing a complaint with the Office of Special
 Counsel regarding removal from his Clinical Psychologist
 position; and (3) appealing to the Board, challenging the
 removal from his Clinical Psychologist position. He as-
 serted that the agency’s retaliation consisted of (1) denying
 his bridge funding request; (2) demoting him from Co-Prin-
 cipal Investigator to Co-Investigator; (3) excluding him
 from participation in new VA funded research; (4) remov-
 ing his name from the research grant; and (5) ending his
 appointment on December 31, 2019.
     The Board found that Dr. Ginsberg had established a
 prima facie case of whistleblower reprisal, but that the VA
 demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it
 would have taken the same actions against Dr. Ginsberg
 even in the absence of his protected disclosures and activ-
 ity. Ginsberg v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. AT-1221-21-
 0116-W-1, 2022 WL 1144886, at *1 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 15,
 2022) (Board Decision).
    Dr. Ginsberg appeals.      We have jurisdiction under
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                         DISCUSSION
     Our review of Board decisions is limited by statute. We
 uphold the Board’s decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, ca-
 pricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accord-
 ance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by
 law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsup-
 ported by substantial evidence.”         5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
Case: 22-1900      Document: 46    Page: 5    Filed: 10/31/2023

 GINSBERG v. DVA                                            5

 Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a rea-
 sonable mind might accept as adequate to support a con-
 clusion.” Shapiro v. Social Sec. Admin., 800 F.3d 1332,
 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and cita-
 tion omitted).
     We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
 Board’s finding that the government demonstrated that
 the VA would have taken the same actions absent Dr. Gins-
 berg’s disclosures. The government argues that the
 agency’s actions were a reasonable consequence recom-
 mended by the IRB and the ORD given the loss of Dr. Gins-
 berg’s clinical position and corresponding reduction in
 hours. Dr. Ginsberg responds that the IRB recommenda-
 tion and the ORD guidance were not mandatory. But the
 issue is whether a reasonable fact finder could find that the
 agency would have taken the same action—adhere to the
 IRB recommendation and the ORD guidance—absent the
 disclosures.    See Hathaway v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.,
 981 F.2d 1237, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“We may not upset
 the Board’s reasonable choices so long as they are sup-
 ported by substantial evidence.”). The recommendation of
 the IRB, even if not mandatory, provides strong evidence
 demonstrating that the agency’s actions would have been
 taken even in the absence of whistleblower action, particu-
 larly as “[t]here is no indication that the IRB committee
 members . . . were aware of [Dr. Ginsberg’s] protected dis-
 closures or of his protected activity.” Ginsberg v. Dep’t of
 Veterans Affs., No. AT-1221-21-0116-W-1, 2021 WL
 2894670 (M.S.P.B. July 6, 2021) (Initial Board Decision);
 J.A. 1224–25. Likewise, the existence of a written policy
 supporting the agency’s action is further evidence that the
 agency would have taken the same actions absent the whis-
 tleblower activity.
     In assessing whether the VA would have taken these
 actions in the absence of Dr. Ginsberg’s protected disclo-
 sures and activity, the Board considered the three non-ex-
 clusive Carr factors: (1) the strength of the agency’s
Case: 22-1900    Document: 46      Page: 6    Filed: 10/31/2023

 6                                           GINSBERG v. DVA

 evidence in support of its action; (2) the existence and
 strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of the
 agency’s officials who were involved in the decision; and
 (3) any evidence that the agency takes similar action
 against employees who did not engage in protected activity
 but who are otherwise similarly situated. Board Decision,
 2022 WL 1144886, at *1–2 (citing Carr v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,
 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). On appeal, Dr. Gins-
 berg challenges factual findings made by the Board related
 to each Carr factor. We find substantial evidence supports
 the Board’s finding on all three factors.
      As to the first Carr factor, substantial evidence sup-
 ports the Board’s finding that the “agency’s evidence in
 support of the personnel actions was strong.” Board Deci-
 sion, 2022 WL 1144886, at *1. The IRB committee “recom-
 mended that Dr. Ginsberg’s scope of practice be amended
 to show that he could not serve in a clinical capacity on the
 [research] project . . . includ[ing] not having any access to
 patients or subject data.” J.A. 1184. The ORD Program
 Guide 1200.15 Section 4 states that “[r]esearch funds may
 only be awarded if the Principal Investigator (PI) and any
 Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) have employment sta-
 tus . . . of at least 25 hours per week (5/8ths),” J.A. 1173,
 and Dr. Ginsberg was at a 2/8ths appointment after losing
 his clinical position. The Program Guide goes on to state
 that “[e]ligibility for VA research support remains in ef-
 fect . . . until there is a change in investigator’s status,”
 J.A. 1174, which was the case for Dr. Ginsberg. As noted
 above, we view the IRB committee’s recommendation and
 the ORD Program Guide as strong evidence in support of
 the VA’s personnel actions.
     With respect to the second Carr factor, substantial ev-
 idence supports the Board’s finding that “any motive to re-
 taliate, if it existed here, was minimal.” Board Decision,
 2022 WL 1144886, at *2. As the Board acknowledged,
 Dr. Omura and Dr. Haddock were both agency officials
 who were aware of the protected activity and were
Case: 22-1900      Document: 46    Page: 7    Filed: 10/31/2023

 GINSBERG v. DVA                                            7

 responsible for several of the personnel actions, and thus,
 a motive to retaliate may have existed. On appeal, Dr.
 Ginsberg points to evidence he deems to be indicative of a
 retaliatory motive and animus on behalf of Drs. Omura and
 Haddock. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. at 39–41. With respect
 to the motivations of Dr. Omura, we have no basis to credit
 Dr. Ginsberg’s contentions that the Board failed to consider
 all the pertinent evidence presented to it or that the Board
 was required to give Dr. Ginsberg’s preferred evidence
 more weight. As to Dr. Haddock, Dr. Ginsberg points to
 “an ethics complaint” Dr. Ginsberg had filed against Dr.
 Haddock, but Dr. Ginsberg did not claim (nor did the Board
 find) that this complaint was a protected activity.
 Dr. Omura and Dr. Haddock simply followed the recom-
 mendations of the IRB and the ORD, and there is no indi-
 cation the members of the IRB were even aware of Dr.
 Ginsberg’s protected speech or activities. Initial Board De-
 cision, 2021 WL 2894670; J.A. 1224–25. As the Board fur-
 ther noted, “other agency employees, such as an [ORD]
 employee . . . appear to have been involved in the personnel
 actions, but there is no evidence that they were aware of
 [Dr. Ginsberg’s] protected disclosure or protected activity.”
 Board Decision, 2022 WL 1144886, at *2 n.2.
      The Board found the third Carr factor neutral. The VA
 “failed to present evidence of nonwhistleblower comparator
 employees,” asserting that there were no comparator em-
 ployees. Board Decision, 2022 WL 1144886, at *2 (citation
 omitted). As the Board acknowledged, we stated in
 Whitmore that “the absence of any evidence concerning
 Carr factor three may well cause the agency to fail to prove
 its case overall.” Whitmore v. Dep’t. of Labor, 680 F.3d
 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012). But here, the agency presented tes-
 timony that “there have not been any individuals with sus-
 pended clinical privileges who are/were allowed to be a PI
 or Co-PI and access patients and [personal health infor-
 mation] data for the research project.” E.g., J.A. 1206,
 1210. Further, Dr. Ginsberg did not dispute the VA’s
Case: 22-1900    Document: 46      Page: 8    Filed: 10/31/2023

 8                                           GINSBERG v. DVA

 assertion that there were “no similarly situated doctors
 who lost their clinical privileges and their Veterans Affairs
 (VA) appointments.” Board Decision, 2022 WL 1144886,
 at *2. Thus, we conclude that the Board’s finding that this
 factor is neutral is reasonable.
     On appeal, Dr. Ginsberg argues that the agency’s view
 of comparator employees was too narrow. As an initial
 matter, we have reviewed Dr. Ginsberg’s briefing before
 the Board. It appears that Dr. Ginsberg never raised this
 argument and thus, it is forfeited. Kachanis v. Dep’t of
 Treasury, 212 F.3d 1289, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“This court
 has long held that appellants may not raise issues on ap-
 peal for the first time.”). Even if we were to agree with
 Dr. Ginsberg’s argument as to this factor, “the agency need
 not prove every factor weighs in its favor, [and] the absence
 of evidence related to Carr factor three is not fatal to the
 agency.” Rickel v. Dep’t of the Navy, 31 F.4th 1358, 1366
 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Whitmore, 680 F.3d at 1374 (explaining
 that “Carr does not impose an affirmative burden on the
 agency to produce evidence” and show that each Carr factor
 weighs “individually in the agency’s favor”). Here, when
 “considering the evidence in the aggregate,” including the
 strength of the government’s evidence for Carr factors one
 and two, the Board’s conclusion that the VA met its clear
 and convincing burden is supported by substantial evi-
 dence. See Robinson v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 923 F.3d
 1004, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
    We have considered Dr. Ginsberg’s remaining argu-
 ments and find them unpersuasive.
                        CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the
 Board.
                        AFFIRMED