Paul Vaughan Gearan v. Department of Health and Human Services, and Merit Systems Protection Board, Intervenor Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A federal employee challenged the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) practice of providing only a tape recording of his hearing for judicial review. The court held that a tape recording satisfies the legal requirement for a “transcript,” and the petitioning party must bear the cost of transcription.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that an administrative agency’s use of tape recordings as the official hearing record satisfies both statutory and appellate rule requirements for a “transcript,” placing the financial burden of creating a written version on the party requesting it.
Paul Vaughan Gearan v. Department of Health and Human Services, and Merit Systems Protection Board, Intervenor Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Paul Vaughan Gearan, a petitioner seeking judicial review of an adverse action by the Department of Health and Human Services, filed a motion to compel the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to prepare and file a written transcript of his administrative hearing. The official record of the hearing maintained by the MSPB was a tape recording. Gearan argued that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP), specifically Rules 16 and 17, require agencies to provide a written transcript as part of the official record for review. He further contended that the MSPB, not the petitioner, should be responsible for both arranging and paying for the transcription. The MSPB countered that its practice of using tape recordings as the official record was authorized by its governing statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7701, and its regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.53. The agency’s regulation specified that while a transcript would be made available, the requesting party was responsible for the cost. The MSPB also detailed its updated procedures for handling transcription when the original court reporter’s tape is no longer available, ensuring the agency arranges the transcription to maintain chain of custody, but with the cost still borne by the requesting party.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an administrative agency satisfy its obligation to provide a “transcript” for judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7701 and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure by providing a tape recording of the hearing and requiring the petitioner to pay for its transcription into written form?
The petitioner’s motion was denied. The court held that a tape recording Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does an administrative agency satisfy its obligation to provide a “transcript” for judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 7701 and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure by providing a tape recording of the hearing and requiring the petitioner to pay for its transcription into written form?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the administrative law principle that agencies may use modern Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nost
Legal Rule
An administrative agency's use of a tape recording as the official record Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proid
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis rested heavily on its prior decision in *Gonzales v. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A tape recording of a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hearing