Rochling v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927

VA treated a patient with liver disease; patient died; family sued for malpractice; VA settled in 2003; panel found settlement for patient’s benefit of Rochling; NPDB reporting followed; Rochling alleged due-process and APA violations; district court dismissed claims and denied supplemental discovery; on appeal the VA’s actions were reviewed for adequacy of procedures and record; court affirmed summary judgment.
Rochling was the alleged responsible physician; he argued NPDB reporting violated his rights and deprived him of due process; the VA concluded the settlement benefitted Rochling and reported to NPDB under 38 C.F.R. § 46.3(b).
A three-member panel reviewed medical records and information to determine substandard care; Rochling submitted additional reports which the panel reviewed; the panel reaffirmed its decision upon reconsideration.
The district court allowed no de novo review, and Rochling sought discovery to supplement the administrative record; the court held the administrative record was adequate for review and denied supplementation.
The court ultimately held that Rochling failed to plead a constitutionally protected interest, that substantive due process was not violated, and that the VA’s factfinding and the panel process were not arbitrary or capricious; summary judgment for VA was proper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rochling has a protected due-process interest.	Rochling contends the NPDB report harms his license and career prospects.	VA argues there was no deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest.	No protected interest shown; dismissal affirmed.
Whether the NPDB reporting constitutes a due-process violation.	NPDB reporting constitutes a retaliatory, stigmatizing action that harms Rochling.	NPDB report is an informational disclosure; state boards may act on it, but the report alone is not a formal censure.	NPDB report alone does not violate due process; affirmed.
What is the proper standard of review for agency action?	District court should apply de novo review because of alleged procedural flaws.	Review under arbitrary and capricious standard; agency considered relevant factors.	De novo review not applicable; standard affirmed as arbitrary-and-capricious not shown.
Did the district court err by denying augmentation of the administrative record?	Additional expert reports and records should be reviewed.	APA review limited to administrative record; no gross abuse of discretion in denying supplementation.	District court did not abuse discretion; record adequate for review.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims, not mere speculation)
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (clarified pleading standard; threadbare recitals insufficient)
Overton Park, 401 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1971) (limits on review of agency action to ensure reasoned decisions)
Kloch v. Kohl, 545 F.3d 603 (8th Cir. 2008) (letter of concern did not by itself impair license; NPDB report not automatic censure)
American Farm Lines v. Black Ball Freight Serv., 397 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1970) (regulatory procedures reviewed for information-gathering intent; not always reviewable; informs Av discretion)