Court Opinion

ID: 9958873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 14:00:54.619782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:54.822384
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1861   Document: 22     Page: 1   Filed: 04/10/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  GONZALO CORPUS,
                      Petitioner

                            v.

      DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                   Respondent
             ______________________

                       2023-1861
                 ______________________

    Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
 Board in No. DA-1221-22-0029-W-2.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: April 10, 2024
                 ______________________

    GONZALO CORPUS, San Antonio, TX, pro se.

     REBECCA SARAH KRUSER, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
 BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA
 M. MCCARTHY.
                  ______________________

    Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1861    Document: 22      Page: 2    Filed: 04/10/2024

 2                                              CORPUS v. DVA

 PER CURIAM.
     Mr. Gonzalo Corpus appeals a decision of the Merit
 Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying his request for
 corrective action under the Whistleblower Protection Act
 (“WPA”) and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement
 Act (“WPEA”). We affirm.
                               I
                              A
       Mr. Corpus was a medical instrument technician em-
 ployed at a medical facility operated by the Department of
 Veterans Affairs (“VA”). Medical instrument technicians
 are required to perform procedures and examinations on
 patients. “Physical requirements for the technician posi-
 tion include frequent standing, walking, bending, and
 reaching,” and the technicians “are required to wear lead-
 lined clothing that weighs 20 pounds during all procedures,
 must be able to lift and/or move over 50 pounds, and must
 have good manual dexterity and keyboarding skills.” S.A.
 5. 1 (internal citation marks omitted). At the medical facil-
 ity, Mr. Corpus was assigned to the Cardiac Catheteriza-
 tion Lab (“CCL”), which required him to perform, under a
 physician’s direction, invasive and noninvasive diagnostic
 tests of patients’ pulmonary and cardiovascular systems.
     Between November 2019 and January 2020, Mr. Cor-
 pus’ supervisors became aware of reports from various staff
 members that he was experiencing seizure-like episodes
 while on duty. The staff members reported that because of
 these episodes, Mr. Corpus had needed to be taken to the
 emergency room on more than one occasion. On January
 7, 2020, Mr. Corpus was diagnosed with psychogenic non-
 epileptic spells (the “Condition”), which is a psychological

     1  “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix filed
 with the government’s response (ECF No. 15).
Case: 23-1861     Document: 22     Page: 3    Filed: 04/10/2024

 CORPUS v. DVA                                               3

 condition that manifests physically as seizure-like epi-
 sodes.
       As a result, on January 15, 2020, the deputy director of
 patient care services removed Mr. Corpus from direct pa-
 tient care, citing “concerns regarding [his] fitness for duty
 related to multiple accounts of inability to move extremi-
 ties, blank stares, apparent disorientation, and difficult[y]
 in forming words.” S.A. 43. She added that the removal
 was also due to “potential safety risks for both [Mr. Corpus]
 and . . . veteran[s].” S.A. 43. The deputy director indicated
 that “[d]uties will be assigned by [Mr. Corpus’] supervisor,
 . . . or designee.” S.A. 43. Later that month, one of Mr.
 Corpus’ supervisors requested that he appear for a fitness
 for duty examination (“FFDE”) scheduled for February 5,
 2020.
     Mr. Corpus submitted himself to this FFDE, and the
 doctor who performed it recommended that he undergo a
 psychological evaluation to determine the extent of his im-
 pairment. After that evaluation, the doctor concluded that
 Mr. Corpus’ ability to perform the essential elements of his
 position was “questionable.” S.A. 47. Thus, the examining
 doctor, noting the “safety sensitive nature of [Mr. Corpus’]
 position,” recommended that the medical facility convene a
 physical standards board (“PSB”). S.A. 47. The PSB was
 convened on May 7, 2020. It determined that Mr. Corpus
 was not able to safely perform his duties, given that his
 condition caused “involuntary loss of control of cognitive
 and motor functions which could pose a serious risk of
 harm to patients and [his] fellow coworkers.” S.A. 48.
      On June 15, 2020, Mr. Corpus was notified that the
 deputy director was proposing to remove him from his po-
 sition. Mr. Corpus responded that he was interested in ap-
 plying for disability retirement instead of being removed.
 Before he could retire, however, Mr. Corpus became seri-
 ously ill with COVID-19 and was unable to work until Au-
 gust 20, 2020.
Case: 23-1861    Document: 22     Page: 4    Filed: 04/10/2024

 4                                             CORPUS v. DVA

     After Mr. Corpus returned to work, the director of the
 medical center, who was responsible for evaluating the pro-
 posed removal, was informed by the human resources de-
 partment that Mr. Corpus was interested in reassignment
 to another position in lieu of removal. Mr. Corpus, how-
 ever, ultimately decided that he was not interested in reas-
 signment.      Nevertheless, Mr. Corpus’ supervisor
 reassigned him to a temporary position with duties that did
 not involve direct patient care and later to a position of
 Medical Support Assistant. Mr. Corpus refused to sign the
 reassignment notice.
     Mr. Corpus subsequently filed an appeal at the Board
 contending that he had been involuntarily reassigned to a
 lower-grade position. The VA responded by withdrawing
 both the notice of reassignment and the notice of proposed
 removal, and Mr. Corpus then withdrew his appeal. The
 Board dismissed the appeal on January 14, 2021. Mean-
 while, the human resources department contacted Mr. Cor-
 pus, reiterating the finding that he was unable to perform
 his duties and offering to find him reasonable accommoda-
 tion.
      On March 15, 2021, Mr. Corpus participated in a fol-
 low-up neurological examination. The examining doctor, a
 different person than the doctor who had conducted the
 first FFDE, concluded that he could resume his duties
 without any limitation. Less than a month later, however,
 Mr. Corpus’ representative informed the VA that Mr. Cor-
 pus was experiencing serious medical problems as a direct
 result of COVID-19. The representative also stated that
 Mr. Corpus had suffered a convulsion in the VA parking lot
 and was then taken to the emergency room.
     Around this time, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) Of-
 fice of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) ac-
 cepted Mr. Corpus’ claim for traumatic injury due to
 COVID-19. The OWCP determined that Mr. Corpus had
 an injury that was proximately caused by employment
Case: 23-1861    Document: 22      Page: 5    Filed: 04/10/2024

 CORPUS v. DVA                                              5

 under, and was compensable pursuant to, the American
 Rescue Plan Act of 2021. On May 3, 2021, a VA representa-
 tive contacted Mr. Corpus to follow up on the reasonable
 accommodation process and potential reassignment. Mr.
 Corpus (through his representative) advised the VA that
 his health issues were being addressed by the OWCP pro-
 cess, which he asserted had “jurisdictional control” over his
 claim.
      On June 8, 2021, the VA requested that Mr. Corpus ap-
 pear for a second FFDE, due to reports of him experiencing
 “difficulty speaking, hand tremors, disorientation, and ap-
 pearing unable to properly perform [his] duties.” S.A. 54.
 Mr. Corpus responded on June 15, 2021 with a letter (“June
 2021 Letter”) stating that his symptoms were due to
 COVID-19. He further espoused the view that because his
 injury was accepted by DOL, he was now entitled to “bene-
 fits and protections.” S.A. 57. Mr. Corpus further asserted
 in the June 2021 Letter that the VA was “coercing” him
 “with threats” and “forcing” him to “violate federal statues,
 HIP[A]A, DOL/OWCP, [and] VA Directives” and disclose
 his “private medical information” that he did “not want to
 release.” S.A. 57. The same letter added that he was being
 “coerced” to submit to a physical examination against his
 will. S.A. 57. The next day, June 16, 2021, Mr. Corpus’s
 representative contacted the Office of Inspector General
 (“OIG”) hotline (“2021 Hotline Report), making similar al-
 legations and raising similar concerns.
     Mr. Corpus arrived as requested at the specified loca-
 tion for the second FFDE on June 17, 2021. However, he
 refused to complete the required examination forms and
 did not consent to the exam. Thus, the scheduled FFDE
 did not occur.
     On July 16, 2021, the deputy director proposed to re-
 move Mr. Corpus for failure to submit to a directed exami-
 nation. The proposed removal notice stated that Mr.
 Corpus’ position was critical and directly affected patient
Case: 23-1861    Document: 22      Page: 6    Filed: 04/10/2024

 6                                              CORPUS v. DVA

 care. His failure to participate in the examination, the no-
 tice explained, presented a safety issue and had a negative
 effect on the efficiency of the agency.
                              B
     On July 30, 2021, Mr. Corpus filed a whistleblower
 complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”), alleg-
 ing that his proposed removal was in retaliation for his pro-
 tected disclosures and protected activities. On October 15,
 2021, the OSC notified Mr. Corpus that it was closing its
 inquiry into his complaint and advised him of his right to
 seek corrective action from the Board via an individual
 right of action (“IRA”) appeal.
     On October 19, 2021, the VA issued a decision to re-
 move Mr. Corpus from employment. The effective date of
 the removal was set as October 25, 2021. On October 21,
 2021, before the effective date of his termination, Mr. Cor-
 pus filed an IRA appeal with the Board.
                              C
     On February 17, 2022, the administrative judge (“AJ”)
 assigned to Mr. Corpus’ Board appeal issued an order re-
 garding jurisdiction. In the order, the AJ explained that,
 “[u]nder the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of
 2012 (WPEA), the Board has jurisdiction over an IRA ap-
 peal if the appellant has exhausted his administrative rem-
 edies before the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and makes
 [certain] nonfrivolous allegations.” S.A. 79. The AJ con-
 cluded that Mr. Corpus had exhausted the OSC process
 with respect to his putative disclosure and activity as set
 out in the June 2021 Letter and the 2021 Hotline Report.
     The AJ found, however, that Mr. Corpus filing of an
 appeal with the Employee’s Compensation Appeal Board
 (“ECAB”) within DOL/OWCP was not a protected activity
 under the WEPA. Furthermore, while Mr. Corpus had ex-
 hausted the OSC process for his claim that the VA retali-
 ated against him by requesting the second FFDE, the AJ
Case: 23-1861     Document: 22     Page: 7    Filed: 04/10/2024

 CORPUS v. DVA                                               7

 found it still lacked jurisdiction for this claim because the
 request (dated June 8, 2021) preceded the June 2021 Letter
 (which was dated June 15, 2021).
     The AJ’s order noted that, to the extent Mr. Corpus
 contended he had engaged in other protected disclosures or
 activities or suffered other personnel actions, he was re-
 quired to file a statement describing them by February 24,
 2022. The AJ noted he had not received any such state-
 ment. Thus, the AJ limited the scope of the appeal to the
 disclosures and personnel actions relating to the June 2021
 Letter and the 2021 Hotline Report.
      On April 20, 2023, the AJ issued an initial decision
 denying Mr. Corpus’ request for corrective action. In the
 decision, the AJ found the June 2021 Letter was not a pro-
 tected disclosure because Mr. Corpus “did not articulate,
 nor [was the AJ] able to discern, a reasonable belief that
 the [second] FFDE violated any law, rule, or regulation.”
 S.A. 23. The AJ concluded the 2021 Hotline Report was a
 protected activity because, by law, disclosing information
 to the Inspector General is a protected activity, regardless
 of its content.
     The AJ also found that the proposed removal was a cov-
 ered personnel action, and that the 2021 Hotline Report
 was a contributing factor in the proposed removal. The AJ
 concluded, however, that the VA showed by clear and con-
 vincing evidence that it would have proposed to remove Mr.
 Corpus even absent the protected activity. Thus, the AJ
 denied Mr. Corpus’ request for corrective action.
     The AJ also held in the initial decision that Mr. Corpus
 had failed to exhaust the OSC process with respect to his
 alleged reporting of sexual harassment and correspond-
 ence with a congressman regarding various issues, includ-
 ing the first FFDE. The AJ also determined that Mr.
 Corpus’ allegations of retaliation for exercising a right pro-
 tected under Title VII did not come within the scope of an
 IRA appeal.
Case: 23-1861    Document: 22      Page: 8   Filed: 04/10/2024

 8                                             CORPUS v. DVA

    The initial decision became final on May 25, 2023. Mr.
 Corpus timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 5
 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
                              II
      At the Board, “[a]n employee who believes he has been
 subjected to illegal retaliation must prove by a preponder-
 ance of the evidence that he made a protected disclosure
 that contributed to the agency’s action against him.” Smith
 v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 930 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
 “If the employee establishes this prima facie case of re-
 prisal for whistleblowing, the burden of persuasion shifts
 to the agency to show by clear and convincing evidence that
 it would have taken the same personnel action in the ab-
 sence of such disclosure.” Id. (internal quotation marks
 omitted); see also 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e).
     In reviewing the Board’s decision, we must “hold un-
 lawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclu-
 sions found to be – (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) ob-
 tained without procedures required by law, rule, or regula-
 tion having been followed; or (3) unsupported by
 substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Substantial ev-
 idence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol.
 Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
 “[W]here two different, inconsistent conclusions may rea-
 sonably be drawn from the evidence in record, an agency’s
 decision to favor one conclusion over the other is the epit-
 ome of a decision that must be sustained upon review for
 substantial evidence.” In re Jolley, 308 F.3d 1317, 1329
 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
     In evaluating whether substantial evidence supports
 the Board’s finding that the VA had shown by clear and
 convincing evidence that it would have taken the same per-
 sonnel action even absent the protected activity, we con-
 sider the Carr factors, which are:
Case: 23-1861     Document: 22      Page: 9   Filed: 04/10/2024

 CORPUS v. DVA                                               9

     [1] the strength of the agency’s evidence in support
     of its personnel action; [2] the existence and
     strength of any motive to retaliate on the part of
     the agency officials who were involved in the deci-
     sion; and [3] any evidence that the agency takes
     similar actions against employees who are not
     whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly sit-
     uated.
 Carr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir.
 1999).
                              III
     The AJ found that Mr. Corpus engaged in at least one
 protected activity (the 2021 Hotline Report), that the pro-
 posed removal was a covered personnel action, and that his
 protected activity was a contributing factor in the proposed
 removal. These findings are favorable to Mr. Corpus and
 the government does not challenge them in this appeal.
 Thus, we focus our analysis on the AJ’s findings that are
 unfavorable to Mr. Corpus.
                               A
     The AJ concluded that the VA showed by clear and con-
 vincing evidence that it would have taken the same person-
 nel action (the proposed removal) even absent the protected
 activity. Substantial evidence supports this factual conclu-
 sion as well as the AJ’s underlying factual findings with
 respect to each of the Carr factors.
      Regarding the first Carr factor – “the strength of the
 agency’s evidence in support of its personnel action” – the
 AJ concluded that the VA presented “very strong evidence
 in support of its proposal to remove” Mr. Corpus. S.A. 31.
 The AJ explained that “[t]he agency articulated legitimate
 concerns about [his] ability to perform the duties of his po-
 sition without risk to himself or patients.” S.A. 31 (discuss-
 ing “continued and unpredictable nature of [Mr. Corpus’]
 seizure-like episodes” and failure to “allay those concerns”).
Case: 23-1861    Document: 22     Page: 10   Filed: 04/10/2024

 10                                            CORPUS v. DVA

 The AJ also considered Mr. Corpus’ violation of the VA’s
 regulation and policy as set forth in the agency’s handbook,
 concluding that the VA was authorized to take disciplinary
 action against Mr. Corpus for his failure to cooperate. Spe-
 cifically, the AJ noted that, under the regulation and the
 VA’s policy, the agency was permitted to order medical ex-
 aminations, and Mr. Corpus’ failure to submit to one was a
 valid basis for disciplinary or adverse action. We conclude
 that the AJ’s determination that the first Carr factor
 “weighs heavily in favor of the agency” is supported by sub-
 stantial evidence. S.A. 33.
      The AJ found the evidence with respect to the second
 Carr factor – “the existence and strength of any motive to
 retaliate on the part of the agency officials who were in-
 volved in the decision” – was “mixed.” S.A. 33. The AJ
 acknowledged that the deputy director and the director
 “may have had a motive to retaliate because [Mr. Corpus’]
 complaints about the second FFDE were directed at the fa-
 cility generally, which could reflect negatively on higher-
 level managers.” S.A. 34. The AJ further noted that these
 two were identified as the “wrongdoers” in Mr. Corpus’ OIG
 complaint. S.A. 34. However, given the deputy director’s
 and the director’s sworn declarations, attesting that Mr.
 Corpus’ protected activities had no bearing on their deci-
 sions with respect to removal, the AJ had substantial evi-
 dence for the finding that the second Carr factor weighed
 “at most, slightly in the appellant’s favor.” S.A. 34.
     The AJ found the third Carr factor – “evidence that the
 agency takes similar actions against employees who are
 not whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situ-
 ated” – was not significant in this case. This was a reason-
 able conclusion given that there was “no evidence of record
 concerning similarly situated employees,” as the AJ noted.
 S.A. 34.
     After weighing the three Carr factors, the AJ concluded
 that the “agency met its high burden of clear and
Case: 23-1861     Document: 22      Page: 11    Filed: 04/10/2024

 CORPUS v. DVA                                                11

 convincing evidence” because “the agency’s evidence cre-
 ated a firm belief it would have proposed the appellant’s
 removal even absent his protected activity.” S.A. 34. More-
 over, “[t]he agency provided ample support, in the form of
 both documentary evidence and sworn declarations, for the
 proposed action.” S.A. 34. These are reasonable conclu-
 sions supported by substantial evidence of record, as iden-
 tified by the Board and summarized throughout this
 opinion.
                                B
    We have considered Mr. Corpus’ remaining arguments,
 though they are difficult to discern, and find them unper-
 suasive. We briefly discuss several of them.
     First, Mr. Corpus suggests that the AJ failed to con-
 sider certain facts. See Pet. Br. at 1-8. While we have no
 basis to assume the AJ overlooked any evidence, see gener-
 ally Snyder v. Dep’t of the Navy, 854 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed.
 Cir. 2017), we fail to see how the allegedly-ignored evidence
 could render the AJ’s decision arbitrary, capricious, an
 abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence,
 or not in accordance with law. Many of the facts Mr. Cor-
 pus identifies are entirely irrelevant to any issue in dis-
 pute. See, e.g., Pet. Br. at 8 (failing to show relevance of
 Mr. Corpus’ two appeals being consolidated and that he is
 100% disabled and being treated for Gulf War syndrome).
 Others were clearly considered by the AJ. Compare, e.g.,
 Pet. Br. at 6 (identifying Mr. Corpus’ filing of appeal with
 ECAB), with S.A. 2 n.1 (discussing this fact and determin-
 ing it was not protected activity). Still others relate to facts
 with respect to which the AJ found Mr. Corpus failed to
 exhaust his administrative remedies. See S.A. 27-28 &
 n.14 (Title VII and sexual harassment allegations); S.A. 28
 (communication with congressman about first FFDE).
    Second, Mr. Corpus argues that the requirement he ap-
 pear for the second FFDE (which was the subject of the
 June 2021 Letter as well as the 2021 Hotline Report) was
Case: 23-1861    Document: 22       Page: 12   Filed: 04/10/2024

 12                                             CORPUS v. DVA

 unjustified because, during the prior neurological exami-
 nation, he had been cleared to resume his duties. See Pet.
 Br. at 11. However, substantial evidence supports the AJ’s
 conclusion that Mr. Corpus “has not established that a dis-
 interested observer with knowledge of these facts would
 reasonably believe the agency was required to defer to” con-
 clusions of a particular doctor, “or that the agency violated
 a law, rule, or regulation by requiring him to undergo an-
 other examination to assess potential limitations.” S.A. 24.
     Third, Mr. Corpus challenges the AJ’s reliance on the
 sworn statements of agency personnel. See Pet. Br. at 17-
 18. The “credibility determinations of an administrative
 judge are virtually unreviewable on appeal.” Bieber v.
 Dep’t of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We
 discern no error here in the AJ’s treatment of these sworn
 statements.
     Finally, Mr. Corpus argues that the AJ failed to con-
 sider the Douglas factors. See Pet. Br. at 27. These are the
 12 factors articulated in Douglas v. Veterans Administra-
 tion, 5 M.S.P.B. 313 (1981), which agencies are to consider
 when determining whether a penalty, such as removal, is
 reasonable. While Douglas factors are pertinent to Mr.
 Corpus’ appeal of his removal (which is not before us), they
 are not pertinent to the IRA appeal Mr. Corpus has pre-
 sented to us.
                              IV
      For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s denial
 of corrective action.
                        AFFIRMED
                            Costs
 No costs.