No. 18-460

Walter Daniel, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rebekah Daniel v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-10-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (7)
Tags: federal-tort-claims-act feres-doctrine medical-malpractice military-discipline military-exigencies service-member service-members stare-decisis statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2019-05-16 (distributed 7 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Feres doctrine bar service members, or their estates, from bringing claims for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act where the medical treatment did not involve any military exigencies, decisions, or considerations, and where the service member was not engaged in military duty or a military mission at the time of the injury or death?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), and its companion medical malpractice cases, Jefferson v. United States, and United States v. Griggs, this Court held that service members were barred from bringing tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act where the injury or death arose out of or in the course of activities incident to service. In subsequent cases, this Court abandoned the primary rationale supporting the Feres doctrine. Further, it adopted the military discipline rationale as the most important consideration in in determining whether Feres bars a claim. This Court has never considered whether the Feres doctrine should apply to medical malpractice cases given the intervening development of the law. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Feres doctrine bar service members, or their estates, from bringing claims for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act where the medical treatment did not involve any military exigencies, decisions, or considerations, and where the service member was not engaged in military duty or a military mission at the time of the injury or death? 2. Should Feres be overruled for medical malpractice claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act where the medical treatment did not involve any military exigencies, decisions, or considerations, and where the service member was not engaged in military duty or a military mission at the time of the injury or death? “i TABLES OF CONTENTS REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION. 8 1. The Feres Doctrine should be Overturned in Medical Malpractice Cases Because of Fundamental Changes in its Doctrinal Underpinnings since 1950 . eee 8 A. The FTCA and Pre-Feres Case Law Permit Service Members to Recover. Against the Government... 8 B. The Medical Malpractice Cases in Feres were Primarily Based upon a Doctrine of Parallel Private Liability which the Court Subsequently Abandoned

Docket Entries

2019-05-20
Petition DENIED. Justice Ginsburg would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas, dissenting from denial of certiorari. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-460_1b7d.pdf'>Opinion</a>)
2019-05-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.
2019-05-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
2019-04-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.
2019-04-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-20
Reply of petitioner Walter Daniel filed. (Distributed)
2019-03-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.
2019-02-27
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2019-01-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 27, 2019.
2019-01-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 28, 2019 to February 27, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-12-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 28, 2019.
2018-12-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 28, 2018 to January 28, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-28
Response Requested. (Due December 28, 2018)
2018-11-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-10-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 13, 2018)

Attorneys

United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Walter Daniel
J. Andrew Hoyal IILuvera Law Firm, Petitioner
J. Andrew Hoyal IILuvera Law Firm, Petitioner