38 U.S.C. § 7462
Major adverse actions involving professional conduct or competence
Provisions similar to those in this subchapter were contained in section 4110 of this title prior to the repeal of that section as part of the complete revision of chapter 73 of this title by Pub. L. 102–40.
2019—Subsec. (b)(4)(A). Pub. L. 116–61 inserted “notice” after “written”.
2017—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 115–41, § 208(b)(1)(A), in introductory provisions, inserted “, within the aggregate time period specified in paragraph (5)(A),” after “is entitled”.
Subsec. (b)(1)(A). Pub. L. 115–41, § 208(b)(1)(B), substituted “Advance written notice” for “At least 30 days advance written notice” and “a statement” for “and a statement” and inserted “and a file containing all the evidence in support of each charge,” after “with respect to each charge,”.
Subsec. (b)(1)(B). Pub. L. 115–41, § 208(b)(1)(C), substituted “The opportunity, within the time period provided for in paragraph (4)(A)” for “A reasonable time, but not less than seven days”.
Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 115–41, § 208(b)(2), added par. (3) and struck out former par. (3) which related to requirement that deciding official render a written decision within 21 days of receipt of the employee’s answer.
Subsec. (b)(4)(A). Pub. L. 115–41, § 208(b)(3)(A), added subpar. (A) and struck out former subpar. (A) which read as follows: “The Secretary may require that any answer and submission under paragraph (1)(B) be submitted so as to be received within 30 days of the date of the written notice of the charges, except that the Secretary shall allow the granting of extensions for good cause shown.”
Subsec. (b)(4)(B). Pub. L. 115–41, § 208(b)(3)(B), substituted “seven business days” for “30 days”.
Subsec. (b)(5), (6). Pub. L. 115–41, § 208(b)(4), added pars. (5) and (6).
1992—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 102–405 substituted “Under Secretary for Health” for “Chief Medical Director” in subpars. (A) and (B).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Dr. R. Michael Harding v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 448 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Dr. R. Michael Harding v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 448 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Harding’s removal “involve[d] a question of professional conduct or competence,” entitling him to appeal the decision to a Disciplinary Appeals Board under 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (a). Dr. Harding then pursued two simultaneous avenues to challenge his removal.”
Suzanne Fligiel, M.D. v. Michael K. Samson, M.D., Anthony J. Principi, in His Capacity as Sec'y, Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 440 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2006). “Fligiel filed two additional amended complaints: the first of these added a claim that the Saginaw transfer was retaliation for the prior complaint of sex discrimination, and the second added a claim that the transfer to Saginaw was a major adverse action, and Fligiel was denied…”
Jeffrey Dubnow v. Denis R. McDonough, 30 F.4th 603 (7th Cir. 2022). “See 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (d)(4). The PDUSH remanded the case to the DAB, requesting fur- ther explanations as to why “diversion of the patient was ac- ceptable, focusing on the fact that a fully trained, Board Cer- tified ER physician should have been able to provide care to an…”
Durr v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2011). “Because Durr’s complaint seeks judicial review of the decision of a VA Disciplinary Appeals Board, we, like the district court, are limited in our review by 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (f). That subsection provides that a court may set aside the judgment of a Disciplinary Appeals Board…”
United States v. Eileen Crowell, 374 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 2004). “” 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (d)(1). Congress has further directed that DNA analysis be expunged from certain indices when a conviction has been overturned.”
Mitchum v. Hurt, 73 F.3d 30 (3rd Cir. 1996). “, one involving both a “major adverse action” based on “conduct or performance” and other adverse actions (see 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (a)(3))— the appointee may appeal to a Disciplinary Appeals Board (DAB).”
Riano v. McDonald, 833 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2016). “” 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (f)(2)(B). The “law” that Riano relies on is the federal constitution and as a “public employee” who had “a property interest in [his] job,” the constitution protects him from being fired without “due process of law.”
Pathak v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 274 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2001). “38 U.S.C. § 7462 (1994). The statute, however, defines “[a] question of professional conduct or competence [a]s a question involving .”
Kreso v. McDonald, 631 F. App'x 519 (10th Cir. 2015). “§ 1291 and 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (f), this court affirms the ruling of the district court.”
Ward v. Brown, 22 F.3d 516 (2d Cir. 1994). “It first found jurisdiction to hear the appeal because although decisions of the Secretary are “final” under 38 U.S.C. § 7462 , the Secretary did not persuade the district court by clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended to preclude judicial review of his decisions.”
Gregor v. Derwinski, 911 F. Supp. 643 (W.D.N.Y. 1996). “" 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (f)(1). As stated, § 7462 does not apply in this case because the imple- *653 meriting regulations had not been established at the time of the events in question.”
Abaqueta v. United States, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (D. Ariz. 2003). “Whether Abaqueta Engaged in Professional Misconduct The Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a Disciplinary Appeals Board for the Veterans Health Administration under 38 U.S.C. § 7462 (f), and in particular § 7462(f)(2), which reads, the court shall review the record…”
— 38 U.S.C. § 7462(d)(1) — 1 case
Savu, MD v. United States of Am. (W.D. Tex. 2023).
— 38 U.S.C. § 7462(d)(2)(A) — 1 case
Dubnow v. Wilkie (N.D. Ill. 2020).
— 38 U.S.C. § 7462(f)(2)(A) — 1 case
John Peterson v. Douglas A. Collins (7th Cir. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.