Whether the scope of the substantial and specific danger to public health and safety provision in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) was erroneously limited

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Federal employees’ whistleblower protections are determined under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) which requires, in pertinent part, a disclosure that the employee reasonably believed evidenced an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). The questions presented are: Whether the scope of the substantial and specific danger to public health and safety provision in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) was erroneously limited when determining whether an accomplished orthopedic surgeon with experience and knowledge of current medical literature and the evolving practice among orthopedic surgeons could have a reasonable belief he is disclosing a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety when disclosing an increased danger of death, stroke, and infection associated with the use of general as opposed to spinal (a.k.a. neuraxial or regional) anesthesia. Whether a decision that analyzes only one event from a disclosure of a sequence of events of bullying in the healthcare setting should be presumed to have considered the other more serious events. i RELATED CASES Abrahamsen v. Department of Veterans Affairs, No. A T-1221-17-0435-W-3, Merit Systems Protection Board. Judgment entered September 21, 2020. Abrahamsen v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs, No. 20-14771, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Judgment entered November 16, 2021. ii