Angela A. Joseph v. United States

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ANGELA A. JOSEPH,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1647
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal
Claims in No. 1:24-cv-01304-AOB, Judge Armando O.
Bonilla.
______________________
Decided: January 7, 2025
______________________
ANGELA A. J OSEPH , Flint, MI, pro se.
P ATRICK A NGULO , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represent-
ed by ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before D YK, T ARANTO, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
Case: 25-1647 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

JOSEPH v. US 2
P ER CURIAM .
Angela A. Joseph appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismiss-
ing her amended complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Dr. Joseph was appointed to work at the Aleda E.
Lutz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a Department of
Veterans Affairs (“VA”) hospital, as a full-time Title 38
§ 7401(1) physician in 2016. On May 21, 2018, her clini-
cal privileges were administratively suspended, and she
was subsequently terminated on August 27, 2018, both
based on her alleged treatment of three patients under
her care. The Standard Form (“SF”)-50 filed to her per-
sonnel record states that Dr. Joseph was terminated
pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 315.804 with the stated reason as
“separation during probation.”1 An Appeals Panel of the
VA conducted an internal review of Dr. Joseph’s termina-
tion, which found no professional misconduct by
Dr. Joseph and amended her record to reflect that her
clinical privileges expired in good standing. The Appeals
Panel could not and did not set aside her termination.2
1 This regulation was subsequently rescinded and
replaced by 5 C.F.R. § 316.304. See Off. of Personnel
Mgmt., 90 Fed. Reg. 26727, 26727–29 (June 24, 2025).
2 Internal peer review panels composed of other
doctors, such as the one that evaluated Dr. Joseph, are
typically convened by hospitals to evaluate allegations of
professional misconduct against physicians in order to
maintain standards of care while giving accused physi-
cians the opportunity to respond before any allegations
are reported to relevant state licensing agencies. See
VHA Handbook 1100.19, para. 6(i)(4)(d) (2007); see also
Case: 25-1647 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

JOSEPH v. US 3
After exhausting other avenues to contest her termi-
nation,3 Dr. Joseph brought suit in the Claims Court,
alleging that she was appointed as a VA physician under
38 U.S.C. § 7401, that the VA breached her employment
contract and its own policies by separating her, and that
she was entitled to backpay and other damages. The
Claims Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over
her suit because Dr. Joseph served by appointment and
thus had no contractual rights against the government.
Dr. Joseph now appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo the Claims Court’s grant of a mo-
tion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Roman v. United States, 61 F.4th 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2023). For the purpose of this review, we accept all
factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
Gabaldoni v. Wash. Cnty. Hosp. Ass’n, 250 F.3d 255, 262
(4th Cir. 2001) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 11112).
3 Dr. Joseph previously challenged her termination
as based on alleged discrimination before the Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board, which dismissed for lack of juris-
diction because physicians appointed under 38 U.S.C.
§ 7401(1) do not have appeal rights to the Board. See
5 U.S.C. § 7511(b)(10); 38 U.S.C. § 7403. She then chal-
lenged her termination based on alleged discrimination in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan and on appeal to the Sixth Circuit, alleging a
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Joseph v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 19-cv-
10828, 2021 WL 4316854 at *4 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 23,
2021), aff’d sub nom. Joseph v. McDonough, No. 21-1736,
2022 WL 19837507 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2022), cert denied,
144 S.Ct. 103 (2023). She was unsuccessful. See id. at *5.
Case: 25-1647 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

JOSEPH v. US 4
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Meidinger
v. United States, 989 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
(quoting Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797
(Fed. Cir. 1995)). Although “[w]e give pro se plaintiffs
more latitude in their pleadings than a party represented
by counsel,” Roman, 61 F.4th at 1370 (citing Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)), this lenience will not
enable a litigant to overcome a jurisdictional requirement
that said litigant has not satisfied, see Kelley v. Sec’y, U.S.
Dep’t of Labor, 812 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Dr. Joseph primarily contends that she had an en-
forceable employment contract with the federal govern-
ment that was breached and that her claim was within
the Claims Court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, Dr. Joseph
alleged a “Breach of Contract” based on the termination of
her “contract with the VA to provide medical care to
veterans” as an employee appointed to a full-time Title 38
employee physician position. Amended Compl. 4, Joseph
v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-1304 (Cl. Ct. Aug. 30, 2024),
Dkt. No. 4 (“Amended Compl.”).
Employees appointed to positions in the federal gov-
ernment do not generally have enforceable contract
rights. See Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. v. Sheehan,
456 U.S. 728, 741 (1982) (finding no contractual rights
created by civilian employment in the military); Chu
v. United States, 773 F.2d 1226, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(noting the “well-established principle that, absent specif-
ic legislation, federal employees derive the benefits and
emoluments of their positions from appointment rather
than from any contractual or quasi-contractual relation-
ship with the government”); Kania v. United States,
650 F.2d 264, 268 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (noting that a “contract
between government and one of its employees is possible,
but it must be specifically spelled out as a contract”). The
amended complaint admitted that Dr. Joseph “was ap-
pointed under 38 [U.S.C. §] 7401.” Amended Compl. 1.
Because the amended complaint did not allege any special
Case: 25-1647 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

JOSEPH v. US 5
circumstances or other bases for an enforceable contract,
it did not adequately allege that there was an employ-
ment contract such that the Claims Court could assert
jurisdiction. See Hamlet v. United States, 63 F.3d 1097,
1102 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that Claims Court lacked
jurisdiction over breach of contract claim brought by
federal employee whose employment was “by appointment
and not by contract”).
Dr. Joseph also argues that the Claims Court had ju-
risdiction over her claim that the VA failed to adhere to
the requirements of the VA Handbook. Dr. Joseph al-
leged that the VA “violated its Handbook Policies and
Directives” because “[t]here is no provision in any VHA
Handbook or Directive that allows for a satisfactory
employee with no findings of substandard care, profes-
sional misconduct, or professional incompetency to be
removed.” Amended Compl. 3–4. A provision of the VA
Handbook could only be found to be money-mandating if
it is “an enforceable ‘regulation of an executive depart-
ment,’” and the provision “can be fairly interpreted to
create a substantive right to monetary compensation from
the United States.” Hamlet, 63 F.3d at 1102. Even
assuming arguendo that the VA Handbook is an enforce-
able regulation of the VA, Dr. Joseph’s amended com-
plaint did not identify any particular provision that can
be fairly interpreted as establishing a right to monetary
compensation for her removal.
On appeal, Dr. Joseph asserts new arguments, includ-
ing an argument based on the Takings Clause.
Dr. Joseph may not assert new claims on appeal that are
not alleged in her amended complaint. Dr. Joseph also
states that she is “seeking for the SF-50 to be corrected to
show that on August 27, 2018, [her] clinical privileges
were expired in good standing.” Appellant’s Informal
Br. 4. The Claims Court does not have jurisdiction to
award injunctive relief that is not “incident of and collat-
eral to” a monetary judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2).
Case: 25-1647 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

JOSEPH v. US 6
This does not suggest that employees in Dr. Joseph’s
position lack a remedy if they can establish they were
improperly terminated. Section 7401(1) employees may
seek review of termination based on alleged professional
misconduct before a Disciplinary Appeals Board.
38 U.S.C. § 7462. Any unfavorable decision may then be
appealed to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and poten-
tially challenged in district court. 38 U.S.C. § 7462(d)(2)–
(3); see Dubnow v. McDonough, 30 F.4th 603, 608 (7th Cir.
2022) (VA physician brought action challenging termina-
tion in district court).
We have considered Dr. Joseph’s other arguments and
have found them unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1647 Document: 25 Page: 6 Filed: 01/07/2026

-- 6 of 6 --