Court Opinion

The plaintiff, a reservist in the Air National Guard, and his wife brought claims for medical malpractice. They specifically sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a surgery he received at a military hospital. The district court dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the complex and often misunderstood Feres doctrine, which states that injuries incident to service in the military are not actionable. The plaintiffs then appealed. (Op at 3). 

The Fourth Circuit then affirmed. The court noted that the plaintiff received surgery at the military hospital because he was a member of the military. Even though he was inactive at the time of the surgery, the military had not discharged him nor given him leave similar to discharge. That is sufficient to bar the claims under the Feres doctrine. This decision has significant implications for other military members who may be considering similar claims. (Id.). 

Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Medical Malpractice on Inactive Military

The Carter case, while focused on whether the plaintiff’s inactive status took his claims outside of the Feres doctrine, has significant implications for military malpractice claims. I examine broader aspects of what military members face when bringing such claims.

For US military members, pursuing legal recourse for such negligence presents unique challenges. I will explore the legal framework governing medical malpractice claims by military personnel, including the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the Feres Doctrine, and the Military Medical Accountability Act (MMAA).  

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

The FTCA is a federal law that generally waives the sovereign immunity of the United States. This law allows individuals to sue the government for certain torts (civil wrongs) committed by federal employees. However, the Feres doctrine significantly impacts the FTCA’s applicability to military members.  

The Feres Doctrine

The Feres Doctrine, established in Feres v. United States (1950), is a legal principle that bars most claims by service members against the United States for injuries “incident to service.” This includes injuries sustained during military training, combat operations, and even those resulting from medical treatment within the military healthcare system.  

The rationale behind the Feres Doctrine is complex and multifaceted. It seeks to:

• Maintain military discipline and order: Allowing lawsuits against the military could undermine the chain of command and hinder the effective functioning of the armed forces.
• Protect the government’s discretionary functions: The Feres Doctrine aims to shield the government from liability for policy decisions and judgments made in the course of military operations.
• Provide alternative compensation mechanisms: Service members and their families have access to various benefits, such as disability compensation, medical care, and survivor benefits, which are intended to compensate for injuries sustained in the line of duty.  

Criticisms of the Feres Doctrine:

The Feres Doctrine has been a subject of considerable debate and criticism. Critics argue that it:  

• Denies service members equal access to justice: It prevents them from seeking redress for genuine medical negligence, even when they suffer significant harm.  
• Disregards individual rights: It unfairly limits the ability of service members to hold the government accountable for its actions.
• May incentivize substandard care: The lack of legal recourse could potentially lead to complacency and a decline in the quality of military healthcare.

The Military Medical Accountability Act (MMAA)

Recognizing the limitations of the Feres Doctrine and the need for greater accountability within the military healthcare system, Congress passed the MMAA in 2019. This legislation allows service members to file administrative claims with the Department of Defense (DoD) for medical malpractice that occurs in certain military medical treatment facilities.  

Key provisions of the MMAA:

• Expanded scope of claims: The MMAA covers a broader range of medical malpractice claims than previously allowed under the Feres Doctrine.  
• Administrative claims process: Service members can file claims with their respective military branches, which will be reviewed and adjudicated by a designated claims board.  
• Compensation limits: The MMAA sets limits on the amount of compensation that can be awarded for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering.  
• Exclusions: The MMAA does not apply to claims arising from combat operations, certain training activities, or medical care provided in combat zones or on deployed vessels.

The MMAA represents a step towards improving accountability and access to justice for service members injured by medical malpractice. However, it is important to note that the claims process can be complex and challenging. In addition, the success rate of claims remains to be seen.

The Administrative Compensation Program

For service members who cannot pursue legal action under the FTCA or the MMAA, the Administrative Compensation Program (ACP) provides an alternative mechanism for seeking compensation for injuries or death resulting from military service. The Department of Defense administers the ACP. The program offers a streamlined process for resolving claims without the need for litigation.  

Key features of the ACP:

• Broad coverage: The ACP covers a wide range of injuries and losses. These include those resulting from medical malpractice, accidents, and also other incidents related to military service.
• Simplified process: The claims process is relatively straightforward, and claimants can typically receive a decision within a few months.
• Limited compensation: The amount of compensation available through the ACP is generally lower than what could be obtained through a successful lawsuit.

The ACP can be an option for service members who are unable to pursue other avenues of relief. However, it is important to understand the limitations of the program and to seek legal advice if necessary.

Conclusion

Medical malpractice claims by US military members present unique legal challenges. These challenges are due to the interplay of the FTCA, the Feres Doctrine, and the MMAA. The MMAA represents a step forward in addressing the needs of service members. However, navigating the legal landscape can be complex and daunting.  

It is crucial for service members who believe they have been injured by medical malpractice to seek legal counsel. They need an experienced attorney who specializes in military law. We can help assess the specific circumstances of the case. Then determine the most appropriate course of action, and advocate for the best possible outcome.  

Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.

Factual Background

The plaintiffs brought a highly intricate medical malpractice case on behalf of their young child, involving a delicate surgery to correct a congenital malformation at a U.S. military hospital that unfortunately resulted in severe complications. (M.O. at 1-2).

The plaintiffs brought their claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a federal law that specifically allows private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. Firstly, they submitted it to the federal agency. The FTCA law requires that the claim state the ‘sum certain’ that the claimant seeks. The federal agency plays a crucial role in this process, as it is responsible for reviewing the claim and determining whether to pay it at the administrative level.

The plaintiffs submitted the form SF-95. The plaintiffs also included an addendum B, which stated, “all told, plaintiffs seek damages, including conscious pain and suffering, and past and future and related health care expenses in the amount of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00).” (Id. at 3).

In the section entitled amount of claim, one parent and child specifically stated $20,000,000 for personal injury and total damages. However, the other parent had 0.00 in both places. (Id. at 3-4).

Afterward, the federal agency did not respond, and the plaintiffs filed suit. The U.S. then moved to dismiss the FTCA claim for failure to identify a sum certain of damages. (Id. at 4).

U.S. District Court

The court found that by entering zero, one parent failed to state a sum certain for damages. The parent argued that addendum B should satisfy the obligation. The court, however, noted that the plaintiffs submitted the addendum for the section on the nature and extent of the injury. Moreover, the reference to seeking damages specifies “plaintiffs,” not this parent. Addendum B does not tell the federal agency the particular damages for that parent. (Id. at 6-7).

As a result, that parent’s failure to present a sum certain to the federal agency before the suit deprives the court of jurisdiction over his FTCA claim. The court dismissed the claim without prejudice. (Id. at 7).

Commentary by the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer on the FTCA Sum Certain Requirement

The court’s reasoning aligns with the role of the sum certain requirement. This element allows the federal agency to determine whether to pay the claim at the administrative level. Understanding the significance of legal procedures like this enhances the audience’s comprehension of the case.

The court opinion did not reveal why the one plaintiff put a zero on the form. Is it possible they were trying to specify that they were seeking $20 million total, not $20 million each? In any event, this opinion shows the care plaintiffs must take when filling out this form.

The practical effect of the court’s decision is not known. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the parent to refile if they can satisfy the administrative requirements within the statute of limitations. This potential for refiling, even if the statute of limitations is unclear, provides a ray of hope in an otherwise complex legal process.

Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.