NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-5023
SARAH R. DACHMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
Sarah R. Dachman, of Silver Spring, Maryland, pro se.
Kent G. Huntington, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. With
him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, and Kathryn A.
Bleecker, Assistant Director.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Marian Blank Horn
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-5023
SARAH R. DACHMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee.
__________________________
DECIDED: April 30, 2007
__________________________
Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and LOURIE, Circuit
Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Dr. Sarah R. Dachman seeks review of the dismissal of her complaint by the United
States Court of Federal Claims. Dachman v. United States, No. 05-772C (Ct. Cl. October
4, 2006). We affirm the dismissal.
DISCUSSION
Dr. Dachman, a physician, was employed since 1988 by the Food and Drug
Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services. On September 23, 1997
the FDA placed Dr. Dachman on non-duty and then AWOL status on September 29, 1997
based on various charges. The FDA removed Dr. Dachman from federal service on
February 6, 1998. In the "Notification of Personnel Action" the HHS demanded
approximately $7,995 from Dr. Dachman based on her non-completion of the Physicians'
Comparability Allowance Program. Dr. Bachman appealed unsuccessfully to the district
court in Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She then appealed to the Court
of Federal Claims. Relying in part on United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 455 (1988),
the Court of Federal Claims held that jurisdiction of Dr. Dachman's claim for back pay and
employment benefits based on wrongful removal arises under the Civil Service Reform Act
and that her appeal is with the Merit Systems Protection Board, not the Court of Federal
Claims. The court also held that the suit was barred on statute of limitations grounds, and
was res judicata based on the district court and Fourth Circuit actions.
Dr. Dachman advances two principal arguments on this appeal. First, she argues
that this suit is not based on the removal action but on the FDA's wrongful classification of
her status as AWOL. Dr. Dachman argues that AWOL "is not a personnel action as
defined by CSRA and MSPB" and that her claim arises under the Tucker Act. The Court of
Federal Claims correctly held that the underlying action is the removal action and is not
within that court's jurisdiction.
2007-5023 2
Dr. Dachman also argues that the Physicians' Comparability Allowance Program is a
contract-based jurisdictional basis for suit in the Court of Federal Claims, referring to the
repayment assessment as a breach of that contract. The Court of Federal Claims correctly
held that this claim is not separable from the removal action, which is barred by any or all of
the statute of limitations, res judicata, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The dismissal
is affirmed.
2007-5023 3