Bryant v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

8 Citing cases

  1. GSS Holdings (Liberty) Inc. v. United States

    81 F.4th 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    This hybrid application was legal error. See Smith v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 930 F.3d 1359, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (holding that the Merit Systems Protection Board legally erred by "conflat[ing] two distinct inquiries"); see also Bryant v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 26 F.4th 1344, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (holding that the Merit Systems Protection Board's failure to apply the correct legal standard was "legally erroneous"); Walther v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 485 F.3d 1146, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that special master legally erred by appearing to "apply an incorrect legal standard").

  2. Grissom v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

    No. 2021-2124 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2022)

    In other words, "the VA and Board must continue to apply the relevant Douglas factors in considering the reasonableness of the penalty." Id.; see Bryant v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 26 F.4th 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

  3. Ludwick v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.

    No. SA-21-CV-0786-JKP (W.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Judicial review of MSPB “decisions is limited.” Bryant v. Dep't of Vet. Affairs, 26 F.4th 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Courts “review[] non-discrimination claims presented to the MSPB based on the administrative record ‘and will uphold the Merit Systems Protection Board's determi- nations unless they are clearly arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence or otherwise not in accordance with law.'” Williams v. Wynne, 533 F.3d 360, 373 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting Aldrup v. Caldera, 274 F.3d 282, 287 (5th Cir. 2001) and citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)(1)-(3)).

  4. Ramirez v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

    No. 2024-1305 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 4, 2024)

    We review the Board's legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bryant v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 26 F.4th 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

  5. Drawhorn v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n

    No. 2023-2031 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2024)

    Dep't of Veterans Affs., 26 F.4th 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015))

  6. Corpus v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

    No. SA-23-CV-01478-OLG (W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2024)

    Judicial review of MSPB decisions is limited to review of the administrative record. Bryant v. Dep't of Vet. Affairs, 26 F.4th 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022).

  7. Trinka v. McDonough

    Civil Action 21-2904 (RC) (D.D.C. Sep. 21, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The Federal Circuit has since reaffirmed in other cases its conclusion from Rodriguez that Section 714 requires that a charge be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to merely substantial evidence. See Bryant v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 26 F.4th 1344, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (vacating the MSPB's decision as to the underlying removal where deciding official only found charge proved by substantial evidence and remanding to the MSPB for further proceedings under the correct legal standard); Bannister v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 26 F.4th 1340, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (same).

  8. Luft v. Dep't of the Army

    Civil Action 4:22-cv-00289-O-BP (N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2023)

    Aldrup, 274 F.3d at 287 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c)). Judicial review of MSPB “decisions is limited.” Bryant v. Dep't of Vet. Affairs, 26 F.4th 1344, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022).