Migliaccio v. Castaneda; Henneford v. Castaneda
Justices will hear Federal Tort Claims Act case (Sept. 30, 2009)
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether doctors and nurses in federal medical facilities are immune to damage lawsuits over flaws in medical care that are claimed to violate patients’ constitutional rights.
The court will decide if the act precludes the cause of action recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
Francisco Castaneda, a Salvadoran immigrant, was denied a biopsy for a lesion on his penis for nearly a year while in prison, despite the recommendation of several doctors. He was later diagnosed with penile cancer, had his penis amputated and he later died.
The federal government admitted liability for medical negligence. Castaneda and his estate filed a lawsuit against individual medical officials seeking damages, but the federal government argued that the law requires any action to come under the Federal Torts Claim Act.
Under that law, damages cannot be awarded against individuals, punitive damages are not allowed, and the case would not be heard before a jury. The medical officials named asked a federal judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to dismiss lawsuits, but both courts refused.
Last October, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the legislation did not preclude a Bivens action, a decision that conflicted with a 2nd Circuit ruling that held that it does.
"The court of appeals' decision will likely have an adverse impact on the government's ability to recruit, hire and retain medical personnel for the PHS, and may affect other federal entities that have medical missions covered by similar immunity statutes," Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the Obama administration.
The Supreme Court consolidated two cases for review: Magliaccioi v. Castaneda (08-1529) and Henneford v. Castaneda (08-1547).
Question presented: Does 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) make the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for claims arising from medical care and related functions provided by Public Health Service personnel, thus barring Bivens actions?