Tag: Privacy Act

Physicians Seek Accountability After Dismissed Federal Case Leaves Lasting Professional Damage

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Government Records, Press Releases, and Background Reports That Plaintiffs Allege Continue to Destroy Their Careers

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of Dr. Jamie Lee Henry and Dr. Anna Gabrielian, seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Fifth Amendment after what the complaint alleges was years of reputational harm caused by inaccurate and misleading government records.

The complaint follows one of the most widely publicized federal prosecutions involving medical professionals in recent years, a prosecution that ultimately ended with all criminal charges dismissed with prejudice after the Court found violations of the Speedy Trial Act.

Yet according to the newly filed civil action, the dismissal did not end the consequences.

Instead, the lawsuit alleges that government press releases, practitioner databases, and federal background screening systems continued to portray the physicians as individuals facing national security allegations long after the case had been permanently dismissed, effectively preventing them from rebuilding their professional lives.

When an Acquittal Isn’t Enough

For physicians, reputation is more than a personal asset, it is a professional credential.

Every hospital appointment, medical license, credentialing review, military privilege, and employment opportunity depends upon the accuracy of federal records and background investigations.

The complaint alleges that despite the dismissal of every criminal charge, government records continued to circulate allegations suggesting disloyalty to the United States, national security concerns, and professional misconduct.

According to the complaint, these records appeared in:

  • Department of Justice press releases
  • Federal practitioner databases
  • Background screening systems relied upon by hospitals
  • Credentialing organizations
  • State licensing authorities
  • Healthcare employers nationwide

The lawsuit contends that those records continued to produce devastating professional consequences long after the criminal case had ended.

A Career Built on Service

Dr. Jamie Lee Henry served nearly twenty years as an Army physician, caring for service members and their families while conducting infectious disease research and participating in humanitarian medical efforts around the world.

Dr. Anna Gabrielian built her career as an anesthesiologist at Johns Hopkins, contributing to maternal health initiatives, medical education, battlefield medicine projects for Ukraine, and international humanitarian programs.

The complaint details decades of public service, military medicine, research, and volunteer efforts that plaintiffs argue stand in stark contrast to the narrative created by the government’s public statements.

Dismissed With Prejudice, but the Story Continued

The underlying criminal prosecution concluded when the United States District Court dismissed every charge with prejudice after finding violations of the Speedy Trial Act.

According to the complaint, the Court described:

  • the allegations as “highly unusual,”
  • the medical records involved as “relatively inconsequential,”
  • and expressed “grave concerns” regarding the government’s handling of the prosecution.

Despite that dismissal, the lawsuit alleges that a DOJ press release remained publicly available for nearly two years without reflecting the final disposition of the case and continued to contain statements suggesting the physicians were “facing federal indictment.”

The complaint further alleges that the government eventually added only a brief notation acknowledging dismissal while leaving the original narrative and allegations substantially intact.

The Lasting Effect of Digital Government Records

Unlike traditional news coverage, government press releases frequently become permanent source material for:

  • background investigations,
  • credentialing databases,
  • licensing reviews,
  • compliance screening,
  • hospital hiring decisions,
  • and practitioner reporting systems.

The lawsuit alleges that those records were incorporated into healthcare screening systems that continued to identify Dr. Gabrielian as facing federal indictment months after dismissal and continued to affect employment opportunities nationwide.

The complaint similarly challenges a National Practitioner Data Bank report affecting Dr. Henry, arguing that it failed to accurately reflect the dismissal of the underlying criminal allegations while characterizing the matter as professional misconduct.

A Case About Due Process in the Digital Age

While the complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, it is equally focused on correcting government records.

The lawsuit raises broader questions about:

  • the government’s responsibility to maintain accurate public records,
  • whether outdated accusations should remain permanently accessible after dismissal,
  • and how inaccurate federal information can continue to affect professional licensing, employment, and constitutional liberty interests.

As public information increasingly becomes permanent digital history, the lawsuit asks whether government agencies have an obligation to ensure that dismissed allegations are not indefinitely presented as current facts.

Statement from Counsel

“A dismissed case should not become a permanent professional sentence. Our clients dedicated their lives to healing others and serving their country. When government records continue to publish allegations after the justice system has spoken, the damage extends far beyond the courtroom. This lawsuit seeks accountability, correction of the public record, and restoration of rights that should never have been lost.” David P. Sheldon, Founding Attorney

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents military service members, federal employees, physicians, healthcare professionals, veterans, and uniformed personnel before federal courts, administrative agencies, licensing authorities, military correction boards, and appellate tribunals throughout the United States. The firm is committed to protecting constitutional rights, professional licenses, careers, and reputations.

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. The allegations described are contained in a publicly filed civil complaint. All defendants are entitled to respond to those allegations, and the claims remain subject to judicial determination.

 

 

Privacy and Power: National Guard Protections Under the Privacy Act Remain Vital in Today’s Environment

Posted on by Becky Haugen
Federalizing the Reserves
Photo By Tech. Sgt. Andrew Enriquez –
This image was released by the United States National Guard with the ID 250815-Z-EZ983-1008

In 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals confronted a seemingly technical, but critically important question: Does the Privacy Act protect members of federally recognized National Guard units when they are not on active federal duty?

The case, In re Sealed Case, No. 07-5251 (D.C. Cir. 2009), involved a Vermont Army National Guard member whose sensitive personal information was improperly disclosed. Represented by David P. Sheldon, the appellant challenged the government’s attempt to carve out the National Guard from the Privacy Act’s protections whenever guardsmen were not on federal activation orders.

The government argued that state Guard units, when not federalized, were “state entities” beyond the Privacy Act. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, however, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the statutory structure of Title 10 and the Privacy Act compelled the opposite conclusion: a National Guard unit is always part of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), which in turn is a reserve component of the Department of the Army, a “military department” expressly covered by the Privacy Act.

Judge Kavanaugh’s Concurrence

The panel opinion was authored by Judge David Tatel, with a separate concurring opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome but emphasized a streamlined statutory approach. He underscored that the Department of the Army is plainly an “agency” under the Privacy Act and that federally recognized Guard units, by definition, fall under the Army’s umbrella. His concurrence dismissed attempts to overcomplicate the statutory analysis, warning that Congress had already spoken clearly: Guard units federally recognized under Title 10 remain tied to the Army’s command structure and thus remain subject to federal obligations under the Privacy Act.

David P. Sheldon’s Argument

In oral and written arguments, David P. Sheldon advanced the principle that privacy protections must travel with the soldier, regardless of whether a Guard unit is under state or federal command. “The dignity of service members requires no less than full protection of their private information, whether they are standing guard at home or serving abroad,” Sheldon argued in the case.

That position carried the day, shaping precedent for thousands of Guard members across the nation.

Why It Matters Today

The reasoning in In re Sealed Case resonates even more strongly in the present environment:

  1. Expanded Federal Utilization of the Guard.  Guard units are increasingly activated for missions that blur federal and state roles—border enforcement, pandemic response, natural disaster relief, and civil unrest. Their entwinement with federal operations makes the distinction between “state” and “federal” duty even less meaningful. Kavanaugh’s statutory reading—that federally recognized units are always part of ARNGUS—fits today’s operational realities.
  2. Growing Data Vulnerabilities.  With AI systems, electronic health records, and broad interagency data sharing, the risk of wrongful disclosure or algorithmic error in Guard members’ personal information has grown exponentially. The Privacy Act, designed to check exactly these risks, must remain robust.
  3. Current Administration’s Military Policies.  Recent administrations, including the current one, have leaned heavily on Guard forces for politically sensitive missions. Attempts to sidestep federal accountability by pointing to “state status” would threaten Guard members’ rights at precisely the moment they need federal protection most.

Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit’s 2009 decision, argued by David P. Sheldon and joined in judgment by Judge Brett Kavanaugh remains good law. Its logic has only gained strength. The Privacy Act applies to the National Guard not as a matter of policy preference, but because Congress has mandated it. In an age of unprecedented reliance on the Guard and unprecedented risks to personal data, this precedent serves as a vital safeguard for those who serve.

References & Resources

  • In re Sealed Case, No. 07-5251, 551 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2009). govinfo.gov 
  • Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).  Justia USSC
  • Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Justice.gov
  • Title 10, U.S. Code §§ 101(a)(6), 10101, 10105, 10106, 10107. govinfo.gov
  • Army Regulation 340-21, The Army Privacy Program. Download
  • Defense Privacy Board, Applicability of the Privacy Act to National Guard Records (1992). PCLT

Disclaimer

This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Service members and federal employees facing Privacy Act or related issues should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized firm dedicated to defending the rights of service members, federal employees, and veterans. From courts-martial to federal employment disputes, medical retirement cases, and Privacy Act litigation, our attorneys combine deep knowledge of military and federal law with an unwavering commitment to justice.