Budik v. United States
949 F. Supp. 2d 14
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Edith Budik, a pro se radiologist, worked at Walter Reed for a brief period in 2007; her DA Form 5374 remarks indicated diagnostic-performance concerns outside her specialty.
- Walter Reed’s Inspector General and Army investigations concluded due process was afforded in her credentialing year; the Army Board later denied her request to amend the record.
- Malcolm Grow Medical Center denied Budik privileges in Oct. 2008 based on Walter Reed/Landstuhl evaluations and mammography qualification needs.
- Disclosures of her DA Form 5374 to Malcolm Grow occurred within the Department of Defense and were challenged as improper under the Privacy Act and 10 U.S.C. §1102; formation of the Medical Credentials/Risk Management System is noted.
- Budik filed FOIA/Army Board requests and separate suits; the Maryland court substituted the United States as defendant; this action was transferred to the District of Columbia, consolidating two cases.
- Court grants defendants’ amended motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; no monetary relief under FTCA/10 U.S.C. §1552; equity relief review under APA contemplated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substitution and venue | Budik seeks Maryland venue; argues extraordinary circumstances exist | Maryland substitution proper; law-of-the-case governs | No extraordinary circumstances; substitute United States remains defendant; venue proper in DC |
| Fifth Amendment due process and property interest | Claims protect reputation and employment opportunity | Reputation not a liberty interest; no protected property interest shown | Dismissed Fifth Amendment due process claim |
| Privacy Act disclosure of DA Form 5374 | Records improperly disclosed; not routine use | Disclosures within routine use and compatible purpose; notice published | Dismissed Privacy Act claim; routine-use exception satisfied |
| 10 U.S.C. §1102 claims and equitable relief | Records disclosure violated 1102; seeks equitable relief | §1102 does not waive immunity for monetary relief; equitable relief available | Dismissed monetary claims; injunctive/declaratory relief viable but ultimately rejected on merits; equitable relief denied as to the underlying claim |
| 10 U.S.C. §1552 and to Title VII claim against Secretary | Requests records correction; Title VII discrimination claim against Secretary | Army Board deference; no Title VII discriminatory denial linked to protected class; agency separation between Walter Reed and Malcolm Grow | Dismissed §1552 monetary claim; Title VII claim against Secretary dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987) (constitutional standing and due process principles referenced)
- Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (reputation injury not a liberty interest; due process not violated by isolated remarks)
- Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (unusually deferential review for Army Board decisions; must have rational connection)
- Bartholomew v. Va. Chiropractors Ass’n, 612 F.2d 812 (4th Cir. 1979) (venue and transfer considerations in related actions)
- Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (non-discriminatory reasons for employment decisions may support Title VII claims)
- Radack v. DOJ, 402 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2005) (privacy act routine-use publication and compatibility analysis)