Timothy Skarada v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2022 MSPB 17

Background

Appellant Timothy Skarada, a GS-12 Supervisory Physical Therapist at the VA Altoona Medical Center, reported concerns (June 2013–June 2014) about an allegedly cognitively impaired physician and deficient patient care to the Director and Chief of Staff.
He alleged retaliation: exclusion from meetings, removal of certain duties, denial of a position-review/upgrade, repeated investigations, yelling/abusive interactions, and a hostile work environment.
OSC investigated and on May 22, 2015 closed the matter, finding no retaliatory personnel action; Skarada then filed an IRA appeal with MSPB.
The MSPB initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; on review the Board found jurisdiction (exhaustion + nonfrivolous protected disclosure + contributing-factor allegation).
On the merits, the Board held Skarada failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a covered "personnel action": specific exclusions and the alleged hostile work environment, while nonfrivolous for jurisdiction, were not shown to be "significant" in the statutory sense.
Result: petition for corrective action denied; no corrective relief ordered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction / Exhaustion	Skarada argued he exhausted OSC remedies and raised protected "impaired provider" disclosures to OSC.	Agency relied on OSC closure and argued no covered personnel action was alleged.	Board: exhaustion satisfied as to impaired-provider disclosures and several alleged retaliatory acts; jurisdiction established.
Protected disclosure status	Skarada contended his reports about an impaired physician reasonably raised a substantial and specific danger to patient safety.	Agency did not dispute that characterization.	Held: disclosure was protected (reasonable belief that patient safety was at risk).
Whether alleged acts are "personnel actions" under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A)	Skarada asserted exclusion from meetings, removal of duties, investigations, yelling, and other conduct collectively constituted a "significant change" in duties/working conditions.	Agency argued individual acts were minor, routine, or collateral and did not have practical/significant consequences.	Held: some exclusions and cumulative hostile-work-environment allegations were nonfrivolous for jurisdiction, but on the merits Skarada failed to prove by preponderant evidence that the actions were "significant" personnel actions.
Contributing factor / Merits burden	Skarada relied on timing and knowledge (disclosures followed shortly by exclusion/hostility) to show contributing factor.	Agency relied on benign explanations for actions and lack of material impact.	Held: contributing-factor nonfrivolous allegation met for jurisdiction (knowledge-timing), but Skarada did not meet preponderance to obtain corrective relief.

Key Cases Cited

Yunus v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional standard for IRA appeals: exhaustion + nonfrivolous allegations).
Holderfield v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 326 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (multiple minor actions may collectively constitute a covered personnel action).
King v. Department of Health & Human Services, 133 F.3d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (a personnel action must have practical consequences for the employee).
Mastrullo v. Department of Labor, 123 M.S.P.R. 110 (2015) (prima facie burden on the merits in IRA appeals).
Ontivero v. Department of Homeland Security, 117 M.S.P.R. 600 (2012) (knowledge-timing test for contributing factor).
Savage v. Department of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612 (2015) (hostile work environment can constitute a personnel action under §2302(a)(2)(A)(xii) if significant).
Shivaee v. Department of the Navy, 74 M.S.P.R. 383 (1997) (need factual detail to prove a change is "significant").
Mason v. Department of Homeland Security, 116 M.S.P.R. 135 (2011) (what suffices to show exhaustion before OSC).