Martin v. Department of Veterans Affairs
5:16-cv-05562
S.D.W. VaSep 1, 2017Background
- Petitioner Russell Martin, a VA physician’s assistant at Beckley VAMC, was investigated after two female employees alleged he performed inappropriate touching during pre-employment physicals in 2014.
- The OIG declined criminal charges; an Administrative Investigation Board (AIB) found multiple violations including inappropriate touching, unprofessional conduct, and documentation failures.
- Martin was given notice of proposed discharge, an opportunity to review the AIB file, and made an oral statement to the deciding official before discharge in September 2015.
- Martin appealed to the VA Disciplinary Appeals Board (DAB); after a two-day hearing the DAB sustained multiple specifications and upheld discharge. The Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health affirmed the DAB decision.
- Martin sued under 38 U.S.C. § 7462 seeking judicial review, claiming due process violations, insufficiency of the evidence, and that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.
- The district court reviewed the administrative record and affirmed the DAB and Under Secretary: no due process violation, findings supported by substantial evidence, and not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Martin's Argument | VA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process in pre- and post-termination procedures | VA withheld material evidence, blocked witnesses, and DAB evidentiary rulings prevented fair defense | Martin received written charges, access to AIB file, chance to respond, DAB properly exercised discretion over evidence and witnesses | No due process violation: Martin had notice, opportunity to review evidence, to respond, and DAB rulings were within discretion |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (substantial evidence) | DAB relied improperly on complainant testimony and disregarded exculpatory evidence; credibility rulings flawed | DAB’s findings rest on consistent witness testimony and records; court should not reweigh credibility | Findings supported by substantial evidence; court will not reweigh credibility determinations |
| Arbitrary and capricious review | AIB/DAB ignored procedures (VA Handbook), relied on biased witnesses, and failed to consider chaperone/system fault | DAB considered evidence, testimony, standards of care, and reached rational conclusions | Not arbitrary or capricious: decision resulted from a deliberate, principled process |
| Evidentiary rulings at DAB hearing | Exclusion of witnesses and limits on cross-examination deprived Martin of defense | DAB may limit relevance and scope; rules of evidence are relaxed but within board discretion | Evidentiary limits did not amount to reversible procedural error; Martin was allowed cross-examination within scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (public-employee pretermination process: notice, explanation of evidence, opportunity to respond)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607 (possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions does not defeat substantial evidence)
- Almy v. Sebelius, 679 F.3d 297 (review standard: do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (court will not reweigh conflicting evidence on administrative review)
- Holland v. Rimmer, 25 F.3d 1251 (posttermination procedures plus pretermination opportunity supply required process)