38 U.S.C. § 7464
Disciplinary Appeals Boards
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: Athey v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 683 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
Athey v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 683 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “§ 7453 (c), and as comparably provided to physician assistants and EFDAs pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7464 (a); (5) ‘additional pay for night, Friday and Saturday hours for individually designated ‘hybrid’ employees prior to January 1, 2002 pursuant to 38 U.”
Earl P. Dick v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 290 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “§ 7425 (b), a DVA physician has no right of appeal if such appeal would be “inconsistent” with the Disciplinary Appeals Board procedure, the separate grievance system set up for such employees under 38 U.S.C. § 7464 . See Cochran v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 67 M.”
Robert Bonner v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare Sys., 477 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “If the case involves a question of professional conduct or competence, 3 and a major adverse action 4 is taken, the employee has an appeal to a Disciplinary Appeals Board appointed by the Secretary in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7464 . 38 U.S.C. § 7461 (b)(1).”
Demons v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 345 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “In this case, there are over 1,000 potential individual claims that share the common issue of being owed backpay under 38 U.S.C. § 7464 (b)(3). Compl. ¶20. The Government argues that “[c]ertifying the proposed class would inundate this Court with a thousand claims.”
Jeffrey Dubnow v. Denis R. McDonough, 30 F.4th 603 (7th Cir. 2022). “§ 7461 (b)(1), and the VA’s Deputy Under Secretary for Health for Operations and Management appointed a Disciplinary Appeals Board (DAB) comprised of three senior VA physi- cians to consider the appeal, see 38 U.S.C. § 7464 (a). The DAB conducted a three-day hearing during which…”
Elizabeth Schacht v. Steven Lieberman, 103 F.4th 794 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “See 38 U.S.C. § 7464 (a). In June 2019 the Chairman of the Board scheduled a hearing on Dr.”
Meyers v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 33 F. App'x 523 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Meyers cites 38 U.S.C. § 7464 , which states that “[a]t least two of the members of each [Disciplinary Appeals Bjoard shall be employed in the same category of position as the employee who is appealing the adverse action.”
Gergans v. Brown, 911 F. Supp. 308 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “38 U.S.C. § 7464 (a). Moreover, members of the Board must be found qualified to serve by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and may be required to undergo training.”
Harishankar Lal Sanghi v. Mississippi Emp. Sec. Comm'n (Miss. 1995). “Sanghi is correct in citing to 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 7464 and 7462(a)(1), which give jurisdiction to a disciplinary appeals board to decide matters of professional conduct and competence in a disciplinary proceeding.”
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.