[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Eric Sirwalker versus the Department of Veterans Affairs, 2018, 18, 1398, Mr. Roy.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
Thank you for having me here today.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
I'm one of the outsiders here, as you can see.

[00:00:17] Speaker 04:
You are fully inside.

[00:00:19] Speaker 02:
Thank you, sir.

[00:00:21] Speaker 02:
This is a, we think, a relatively simple case where a public employee,

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
board-certified and long-term psychologist, Side D, was terminated from his position as a physician by the Veterans Administration.

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
What happened at the hearing in November?

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, ma'am?

[00:00:43] Speaker 03:
What happened at the hearing in November?

[00:00:45] Speaker 02:
At the hearing in November, Judge, what happened is that, I've got to remember, we've had so many hearings.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
We had a hearing in the district court in Louisiana

[00:00:58] Speaker 02:
originally the judge throughout the entire case against him.

[00:01:05] Speaker 02:
We are now back in the district court in exactly the same position we were in originally

[00:01:17] Speaker 02:
because the merits of the appeal were never heard.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:01:20] Speaker 03:
And that's what you said in your brief.

[00:01:22] Speaker 03:
But my question is, so you did go back to court in November.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
Yes ma'am.

[00:01:26] Speaker 03:
So what happened then?

[00:01:29] Speaker 02:
We have now submitted appeal briefs.

[00:01:32] Speaker 02:
The trial court is the first level of appeal on this matter.

[00:01:35] Speaker 02:
So what happened in the trial court?

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
We don't have a decision yet.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
It's submitted for decision with oral argument February 2nd.

[00:01:44] Speaker 03:
So you had a hearing, but no decision, post-trial briefing or something you were doing?

[00:01:49] Speaker 02:
We have.

[00:01:50] Speaker 02:
It's actually appeal briefing because we didn't add any record at the trial court.

[00:01:58] Speaker 02:
You can supplement the record, but there wasn't any supplementation at that time.

[00:02:03] Speaker 02:
So the trial judge sitting as a one-judge appellate level

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
will now make a decision.

[00:02:10] Speaker 03:
You've got to love Louisiana how this works, right?

[00:02:12] Speaker 03:
Ma'am?

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
I said you've got to love how things work down there.

[00:02:16] Speaker 03:
So the trial judge sits as a one-judge appellate judge?

[00:02:20] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
It does not remove the normal Court of Appeal.

[00:02:26] Speaker 02:
That still, we would go there, it simply adds one level in any administrative ruling.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
The first level of appeal

[00:02:37] Speaker 02:
goes to the district court in the district where that board sits.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
And that court, as a one-judge appeal court, sits in review.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
Okay, so nothing really happened other than you telling the court that you were not going to submit any new evidence.

[00:02:52] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:02:53] Speaker 02:
And the other side did not either, Your Honor.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
So all of the briefs, as of a week ago, was submitted.

[00:03:01] Speaker 02:
The judge now has all of those briefs.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
We will do whatever oral argument or answer any questions he has on February 4, and the matter will be submitted to him for decision.

[00:03:12] Speaker 02:
Once he makes a decision there, either side that believes that they have a right to do so or a case to do so has a legal right in Louisiana to take it up to the Court of Appeal.

[00:03:26] Speaker 04:
But as of now, you have a decision of the board which applied the statute to the facts

[00:03:33] Speaker 04:
And what was wrong with that?

[00:03:37] Speaker 04:
Because under the statute, Mr. Suwonka could no longer serve.

[00:03:43] Speaker 04:
And that's what the decision we're reviewing, right?

[00:03:47] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:03:49] Speaker 02:
He was always doubly licensed.

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
He had always had a legitimate and current New York license.

[00:03:57] Speaker 04:
But the statute recognizes that possibility.

[00:04:00] Speaker 02:
You're 100% correct, Judge.

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
What we argue and we believe is correct is this.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
He was a long-term, valuable employee.

[00:04:11] Speaker 02:
His record was very good.

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
He lost his license in Louisiana on what, from the very start, everyone knew and had reported was an appealable issue.

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
Within four months, he had that license back.

[00:04:28] Speaker 02:
He's had it since then.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
He has it to date.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
We argue that when those are the facts, he did lose that license.

[00:04:38] Speaker 02:
But when the loss of that license is as it was here, the very start, a fluid loss where he immediately took an appeal and got it back, then we... So you're saying we should read into the statute and unless clause, unless he has appealed it, then that's not in the statute.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
What it says, Judge, is that the action has to have taken place.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
He did lose his license, without a doubt.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
And 7402 says, if you lose your license, you will be separated.

[00:05:15] Speaker 03:
It's mandatory, right?

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
That's what the statute says.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
I don't say that it's mandatory because, Judge, you have to look at the reason for the loss of the license and then

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
whether it had anything to do with the agency.

[00:05:33] Speaker 03:
So the charge conduct... That's assuming that your argument that the CSRA somehow overrides the plain language of 7204, right?

[00:05:44] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:05:45] Speaker 02:
But if you look also under 5 U.S.C.

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
7512.1, it says the agency may remove only for cost promoting efficiency of service.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
And to sustain the adverse action, they have to show that the charge conduct occurred.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
It occurred.

[00:06:02] Speaker 02:
It occurred.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
But the two other next items are, there has to be a nexus between the conduct and the efficiency of service.

[00:06:09] Speaker 03:
That's under the CSRA, right?

[00:06:12] Speaker 02:
That's correct.

[00:06:13] Speaker 02:
And then the penalty imposed must fall within tolerable limits of reasonableness.

[00:06:19] Speaker 02:
If you have an employee who's doing a good job for you,

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
has gotten promotions, his service has been good.

[00:06:28] Speaker 02:
He actually has some skills that others don't have.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
So you want to keep him.

[00:06:33] Speaker 02:
If he gets into a problem that you know from the outset, for example, you know he's out for a period of time because of illness or whatever, but he's going to be able to come back.

[00:06:44] Speaker 02:
You don't terminate the guy's services.

[00:06:46] Speaker 04:
What they did here was... The statute says may not be employed.

[00:06:52] Speaker 04:
Doesn't say may be penalized.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
And then the question is, what's the penalty that says, may not be employed?

[00:06:58] Speaker 02:
He could have been, if Your Honor, please, he could have been suspended.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
That would have been a four-month suspension only.

[00:07:08] Speaker 02:
He could have been suspended.

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
He could have been placed in a position that did not require his license.

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
He could have worked, as he did for the first two years for the VA, without a license.

[00:07:19] Speaker 02:
He could have worked under a licensed psychologist as a lesser person, at a lesser pay.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
All of those were available.

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
What they did here was chose the most severe penalty

[00:07:32] Speaker 02:
for something that hit one charge.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
He lost his license in Louisiana.

[00:07:38] Speaker 02:
He did nothing wrong at the VA.

[00:07:40] Speaker 02:
His services at the VA were exemplary.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
There were no other charges made against him.

[00:07:46] Speaker 02:
Zero.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
And they took this measure because of the fact, we say, they wanted to get rid of this guy.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
They had a reason to get rid of him.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
Other than this, they should have presented it, and they didn't.

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
They simply said, you lost this license.

[00:08:02] Speaker 02:
We know it's fluid.

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
We know you can get it back.

[00:08:06] Speaker 02:
By the time we had the hearing before, the Maryland Petitions Board, he had his license back.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
So he, at that time, was licensed.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
He could have been re-employed at that point in time.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
And the only reason for the action against him

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
was the loss of that license.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
We say that because of that, there's absolutely no reason that this man should not be back working for the VA.

[00:08:35] Speaker 03:
But even if we're talking about the CSRA versus a statute that may not be even impacted by the CSRA, the decision maker ultimately made the assessment and said that mitigation of the penalty was not appropriate.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
If you look at the reasons that the director gave, number one, the record indicates he didn't even know what the criteria was.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
He said that in the record, Judge.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
Number two, if you look at what he says, it has nothing to do with the charges against him.

[00:09:10] Speaker 02:
Nothing.

[00:09:11] Speaker 02:
It talks about the fact that he may not work well with people at the VA.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
He may not get along with other employees at the VA.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
That's never charged, and there's no evidence of it.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
Where does that come from?

[00:09:24] Speaker 02:
This is boilerplate that the man put down here, simply so that we would have a sheet of paper with the director's reasons on it.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
There isn't anything else there.

[00:09:35] Speaker 02:
He never showed that there was a reason to terminate or that there was a promotion of efficiency of service that was going to take place as a result of that.

[00:09:45] Speaker 02:
In fact, it's not even addressed in there because there isn't any promotion of efficiency of the service.

[00:09:55] Speaker 02:
From the very start, these people understood that this was

[00:10:01] Speaker 02:
not a final decision that didn't give Dr. Sawonka appropriate notice in advance.

[00:10:07] Speaker 03:
It was not a final decision.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
The removal of his license because he had the right to appeal?

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
That's exactly right, Your Honor.

[00:10:15] Speaker 03:
So you're saying that the statute really says that if you aren't licensed or you lose your license, you should be separated

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
But if and only if all rights of appeal have been exhausted.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
It doesn't.

[00:10:35] Speaker 02:
But it also doesn't say, Judge, that the separation has to be permanent.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
The separation here could easily have been a suspension, even without pay, pending regaining his license.

[00:10:48] Speaker 03:
But the license was a rev... I mean, the issue with respect to the license was a revocation.

[00:10:53] Speaker 03:
It wasn't a suspension.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
It was a temporary revocation, if Your Honor, please.

[00:10:58] Speaker 03:
It was one that... That sounds like an oxymoron.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
How is it a temporary revocation?

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
Judge, as long as that... That would be a suspension.

[00:11:06] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
I would beg to disagree, Your Honor.

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
As long as that loss of license, in whatever form it was, was something that was appealable, and we demonstrated it was, and returnable, as we demonstrated it was and is, then I say,

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
that you then base your decision penalty on whether there's any chance he's going to take care of that problem.

[00:11:34] Speaker 02:
You give the person an opportunity to correct the problem.

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
He did it here.

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
He always has had, with VA permission, a private practice also.

[00:11:44] Speaker 02:
He's conducted that private practice except for four months.

[00:11:47] Speaker 03:
But if he gets his license back, if he permanently gets his license back, he could always reapply, right?

[00:11:56] Speaker 02:
He could reapply, Your Honor.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
He could reapply.

[00:11:59] Speaker 02:
I'm suggesting to you that there's no reason that he should have to do that when the problem here was one not of his own making.

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
It is a matter that was, the principle of it was litigated in a civil matter.

[00:12:19] Speaker 02:
The matter was substantially thrown out.

[00:12:21] Speaker 02:
The complainant was found to be not a candidate.

[00:12:25] Speaker 04:
Council, you're into your rebuttal time.

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
You can continue or save it.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
If you have no other questions right now, I'll save for rebuttal.

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:36] Speaker 04:
Mr. Kushner.

[00:12:49] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
38 USC section 7402F provides that a medical professional may not be employed by the Veterans Health Administration.

[00:12:58] Speaker 04:
I don't know what the statute says.

[00:13:02] Speaker 04:
But you've got a fact situation here where he was apparently reinstated.

[00:13:07] Speaker 04:
And doesn't that play a role here?

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:13:12] Speaker 00:
And my understanding is that in the state of Louisiana, it is customary to reinstate the license of a professional

[00:13:19] Speaker 00:
once that professional files for an appeal of the license revocation.

[00:13:24] Speaker 00:
So here, it's merely a matter of custom that the license was reinstated.

[00:13:29] Speaker 04:
In other words, it hasn't been reversed on the merits?

[00:13:32] Speaker 00:
It has not, Your Honor.

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:13:34] Speaker 00:
And that merits hearing is scheduled before the trial judge in Louisiana.

[00:13:39] Speaker 00:
Council just said, February, my understanding from conversations with counsel for the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists

[00:13:47] Speaker 00:
is that that hearing will take place in March.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
That's the merits hearing in Louisiana.

[00:13:52] Speaker 03:
But why shouldn't we read 7402 then as relating to a circumstance in which there has been an inability to show that he may get his license back?

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
In other words, why shouldn't we just say until it's final, final, that 7402 doesn't get his license back?

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
So the statute itself does not provide for such an alternative penalty suspension or any type of penalty that's an alternative to revocation.

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
The statute says that the medical professional may not be employed once his license is revoked.

[00:14:34] Speaker 00:
And that provision is also strengthened.

[00:14:37] Speaker 00:
It's not revoked.

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
Well, it was revoked at the time that the agency in this case, the Department of Veterans Affairs,

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
removed him from his position.

[00:14:49] Speaker 00:
It was not appealed until about a month and a half later.

[00:14:52] Speaker 01:
Shouldn't the board have waited until the merits are served before it makes its decision?

[00:14:58] Speaker 00:
No, Your Honor, because again, the statute provides that the removal has to be immediate.

[00:15:05] Speaker 00:
It does not provide for a grace period.

[00:15:07] Speaker 00:
It does not provide for alternative sanctions.

[00:15:10] Speaker 01:
It says that the medical professional... The removal for revocation, right?

[00:15:12] Speaker 01:
Or the license?

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:15:15] Speaker 01:
But it's customary in Louisiana to have a temporary revocation or suspension.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:15:22] Speaker 00:
And I think that type of situation demonstrates exactly why Congress made this provision as categorical as it is.

[00:15:30] Speaker 00:
In the legislative history that we've cited to the court, Congress made clear that its primary.

[00:15:35] Speaker 01:
So what happens if he wins on the merits?

[00:15:37] Speaker 01:
Then nothing can happen to reinstate him to get his job back?

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
unfortunately not under the statutory language.

[00:15:44] Speaker 00:
He can reapply for his position.

[00:15:45] Speaker 00:
He'll have many years of experience, and perhaps he'll get another position, but not under the statutory language.

[00:15:54] Speaker 00:
And, Your Honor, if I may just finish my point about the legislative history, Congress made clear that the purpose of the statutory provision is veterans' safety, first and foremost.

[00:16:04] Speaker 00:
If you have a situation where a state automatically reinstates a license

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
Pending an appeal, which is essentially what Louisiana did here, you can have a situation where an unethical or a dangerous medical professional can continue working with veterans while their appeal of the license revocation is pending.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
Or you can have a person who's innocent of a target all along working with those veterans.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
I mean, you're assuming guilt.

[00:16:34] Speaker 00:
Well, it's not so much that I'm assuming guilt in as much as the state board already found that the license should have been revoked for cause and actually revoke that license.

[00:16:47] Speaker 00:
So there was a full hearing.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
There was a two-day hearing.

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
There was testimony and evidence presented to the licensure board.

[00:16:53] Speaker 00:
And they concluded that there was significant unethical conduct by Dr. Serwanga.

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
So you're saying we shouldn't fail to apply a clear statute

[00:17:05] Speaker 04:
because the suspension of revocation could be reversed?

[00:17:11] Speaker 00:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
I think Congress's intent in this particular statutory language, as well as the legislative history and the VA's reasonable interpretation of that statute, as demonstrated in the VA's handbook, I think all that is clear.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
The court cannot read into that statutory provision additional limitations that are not there.

[00:17:34] Speaker 03:
Let me give you a hypothetical, because obviously, given what Mr. Sawanka admitted to in his hearing, there was clear basis for the state licensure board to decide to revoke his license rather than suspend it.

[00:17:53] Speaker 03:
But what if you had a circumstance in which there were no admissions by the doctor, but he had been accused of certain things,

[00:18:01] Speaker 03:
the board revokes his license, and later it turns out that all of those things he was accused of didn't occur, and that therefore he had been improperly revoked by the state board.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
The state board realizes that and gives him his license back.

[00:18:20] Speaker 03:
So there's no way to undo what happened in terms of his termination, this hypothetical person.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
There is no way to undo that under that provision of the statute.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
I would note, however, that both the statute and the VA handbook did provide Dr. Serwanka with an opportunity to present this case to the VA before he was removed.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
Right, and he chose not.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
And so the notice of proposed removal gave him an opportunity to present orally and in writing, as well as submit evidence to the VA.

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
And the VA handbook also provides for an opportunity to seek review by the network director, which is a level above that individual who removed Dr. Serwanka from his position.

[00:19:14] Speaker 00:
So in that hypothetical, a medical professional could argue to the VA that the license revocation was incorrect and therefore not for cause.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
Perhaps either the VA individual who makes that decision or the network director would reach a result that the revocation was not for cause.

[00:19:37] Speaker 03:
But in this situation... Does 7402 refer to cause or does it simply refer to not having a license anymore?

[00:19:45] Speaker 00:
It refers to cause, Your Honor.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
It specifically says that the license revocation has to be for cause.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
Now Dr. Sawanka also has presented an argument of retaliation, essentially saying that the VA removed him not because of the license revocation, but because it was retaliating against him for filing an EEOC complaint.

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
And here that argument is not persuasive because the

[00:20:21] Speaker 00:
The MSPB administrative judge determined as a factual matter that there was no retaliation.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
The administrative judge weighed the testimony of all the witnesses and concluded that the official that actually removed Dr. Sawanka was unaware of the EEOC complaint prior to removal.

[00:20:41] Speaker 00:
Dr. Sawanka has presented no evidence to demonstrate that the MSPB's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and therefore that argument does not meet the court's standard of review.

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
There are no further questions.

[00:20:55] Speaker 04:
I would like to ask you a question.

[00:20:59] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:21:00] Speaker 04:
Mr. Roy has a few minutes for a bottle if you need it.

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:21:06] Speaker 02:
I'll just make just a very few points.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
In reciting the Douglas Factors, the director here said there were four things I picked up here.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
There was, by Dr. Samonka, clear professional misconduct that was never charged.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
Failure to meet ethical standards with patience.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
It was never charged.

[00:21:26] Speaker 02:
Professionally ethical misconduct.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
Never charged.

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
And lack of insight into misconduct.

[00:21:31] Speaker 02:
None of those were ever found.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
Where are you reading from?

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
This is the Douglas Factors, which we cited in our brief on the, rebuttal brief on the top of page two.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
These ones are applied by the board.

[00:21:44] Speaker 04:
These weren't applied by the board, and therefore they're not subject to our review, right?

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
Well, but part of what they say here is that the director has to determine that these factors exist in order to determine if the penalty is appropriate, whether the charges are appropriate.

[00:22:04] Speaker 02:
And the director here says, well, I looked at all of that.

[00:22:07] Speaker 02:
What he found here, he talks about charges.

[00:22:11] Speaker 02:
There's only one charge.

[00:22:13] Speaker 02:
And then he says there's professional and ethical misconduct.

[00:22:18] Speaker 02:
None of those are charged here.

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
Loss of a Louisiana license is the sole charge here.

[00:22:26] Speaker 02:
And what happens here, I'll comment on something that one of the judges asked about.

[00:22:33] Speaker 02:
Reinstatement of license in Louisiana by the district court, sitting as the first level of appeal, is by rule to show cause.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
It's discretionary as to whether the judge will allow it or not.

[00:22:47] Speaker 02:
And here, the judge did allow it.

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
He can or cannot.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
It's up to him.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
It's an order that will stay in effect pending the entire appeal in Louisiana up through the state Supreme Court.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
That's just a little backwards, doesn't it?

[00:23:05] Speaker 03:
If you've got a licensing board that revokes a license, you would think it would at least, during appeal, the license would remain at least suspended rather than the other way around.

[00:23:18] Speaker 02:
The theory, Judge, is that the licensing board is a politically appointed board.

[00:23:27] Speaker 02:
It's not judiciary.

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
It doesn't have any training under the law.

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
It has a lawyer there, but no training under the law.

[00:23:34] Speaker 02:
And therefore, the first level of appeal ought to be before a court.

[00:23:39] Speaker 02:
And I was suggesting to you, Judge, that's a fairly significant difference, I think, between the civil law under the French Code and the common law in 49 states.

[00:23:53] Speaker 02:
And then lastly, Judge, here is the matter before the Louisiana Board that led to loss of license had absolutely no connection with the VA employment or actions.

[00:24:07] Speaker 02:
None.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
There were charges completely separate from it in the separate practice of Dr. Sawongka.

[00:24:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:24:17] Speaker 04:
I appreciate your time.

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Counsel.

[00:24:18] Speaker 04:
We'll take the case on revising.