NYT Op Ed on the Feres Doctrine

Yesterday I commented on the news that two Justices voted to take on a case that could have resulted in a change to the Feres Doctrine.  Today there's more.  Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, just published an Op Ed piece in the New York Times calling on Congress to undue the doctrine.  You can read the article here.  In part, it states:

For almost as long as it has been on the books, the Feres decision has been controversial. The case reached the Supreme Court in 1950, four years after Congress broadly expanded the tort liability of the federal government in the Federal Tort Claims Act and shortly after the United States had entered the Korean War. Although Congress had expressly disallowed claims from anyone arising out of the military’s “combatant activities,” the Supreme Court in Feres went further. It held that Congress could not have intended that service members could bring ordinary tort suits for any other claims arising out of their military service, even though nothing in the law directly supported that result.

As Justice Antonin Scalia put it in 1987, “Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the ‘widespread, almost universal criticism’ it has received.” Not only did the court in 1950 read into the tort claims act an exception with no textual support; subsequent decisions broadly construed Feres’s scope so that it is virtually impossible for service members to recover damages from the government for almost any negligence or other misconduct they suffer while serving. In the process, Feres treats service members more harshly than any other Americans, even in contexts that are entirely analogous to civilian life — like medical malpractice claims at stateside hospitals. It would be one thing if Congress had expressly required such an unjust and unfair result. But nearly every contemporary court and commentator agrees that it did not — and that the result of the decision, in Justice Scalia’s words, has been “unfairness and irrationality.”

. . . . Why has the court held firm on a decision so widely criticized? In that same 1987 case in which Justice Scalia dissented with three other justices, the court identified three justifications. First, injuries to service members related to their military service should not be left to the vagaries of 50 different state laws but should instead be subject to a uniform federal rule. Second, Congress had already provided at least some kind of remedy to injured service members through “generous statutory disability and death benefits.” And third, tort suits arising out of military service “would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.” 

Reasonable minds can disagree about the relative strengths of these policy arguments; Justice Scalia’s central point in dissenting from that analysis was that Congress had already weighed the pluses and minuses of such policy considerations when it enacted the tort claims act — and it wasn’t for the courts to second-guess its answer. “The problem now, as then,” he explained, “is that Congress not only failed to provide such an exemption, but quite plainly excluded it.”

 As Prof. Vladeck explains, the doctrine is controversial and has been hotly debated for a long time.  Several attempts to change it have failed in Congress.  For some of the arguments against his position you only need to read some of the comments already posted to his argument.  Here is one:

It may be hard to understand the justification for Feres in a medical malpractice case like this, but there are many situations in which the nature of military service is hard to reconcile with normal tort concepts. The Tort Claims Act already excludes liability for combat activities, but military personnel engage in non-combat activities that are dangerous and difficult to measure by negligence standards.

Is it negligent to subject military personnel to training that, by replicating some of the risks of combat, prepares trainees for combat? Is it negligent for the Coast Guard to send personnel on a search and rescue mission in a storm? Does it matter how many civilians may die if no rescue is attempted?  

Military personnel are entitled to compensation on a no-fault basis for service connected injuries. If that compensation is viewed as inadequate, the better solution may be to increase it rather than, as Professor Vladeck proposes, legislation to overturn Feres in its entirety.

 Here is part of another one:

Of course. That's the solution. We need more tort claims. I'm sure that will improve the quality of military healthcare. Why didn't I think of that?  

Geez. You sometimes witness why law struggles to meet reality. 

I happen to agree with the reasoning behind Feres. The military isn't going to function well if you open the government to personal liability claims from service members.  hat's a rabbit hole I don't want to go down. 

If you're a service member and something bad happens... well... you're a service member. Use the military hospital and hope for the best.

So, what do you think?

Justice Thomas argues in favor of overturning the Feres Doctrine!

I am not sure why but the Feres doctrine seems to be in the news a lot these days.  Yesterday I commented on a recent bill seeking to limit the Feres Doctrine and on the fact that the doctrine is currently part of the plot of a TV show.

Today, the news is that Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in a denial of cert with an opinion in which he argued the court should have taken on the case in order to overturn Feres v. United States.  The case is called Daniel v. United States.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also would have granted certiorari.

You can find all the relevant documents about the case here.

Unfortunately, the other important part of the story is that the Court refused to hear the case, which means it refused to reconsider the Feres doctrine.

Since there have been previous attempts to get rid of it in Congress and they have all failed, I am not too hopeful in the future of the recently proposed bill. If there was going to be a change, this now rejected case was the best chance.

Another attempt to eliminate (at least part of) the Feres Doctrine

As you might remember from your first semester Tort Law class, the Feres Doctine refers to the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in a case called Feres v US to an exception to the Federal Torts Claims Act.  According to the exception, members of the military can not sue the federal government for injuries suffered while in active duty.  In Feres, the Court expanded the interpretation of the exception to essentially ban any claim for any injury under any circumstances while the plaintiff was in service (active or otherwise).  This has resulted in findings that members of the military can't sue for injuries caused by medical personnel, for example.

This is a controversial doctrine, and there have been many calls to eliminate it.  But all the attempts to do so have failed.

The TortsProf blog is now reporting that there is a new push afoot.

A bipartisan bill that would overrule the Feres Doctrine has been introduced in the House of Representatives.  The bill would create an exemption to the Federal Tort Claims Act to allow plaintiffs to file medical malpractice lawsuits for injuries that occur after the bill's passage.  However, the bill would have no impact on those instances of medical malpractice that occur during combat operations, aboard ships, or at battalion aid stations. 

For more information on the debate related to the Feres Doctrine, you can watch this old video.  And for some of my posts on it go here, here, here, and here.

Interestingly, the Feres Doctrine is also an underlying issue in the new TV Show "The Code", in which the widow of a member of the Marines sued for wrongful death.  During the episode (episode 3, which you can watch here), a few of the characters talked about it and their explanation was actually pretty accurate.  I think the producers got a good legal consultant to help with the script.

New case claims injury based on negligent conduct by fertility clinic

A few years ago I wrote an article criticizing a case in which the plaintiffs claimed to have suffered an injury because, due to the conduct of the defendant, they ended up giving birth to a child of a different race.  (See here.)  I argued that it would be wrong to use someone's race as a measure of injury in a torts claim.

I still believe that to be the case, but a new case has been filed in Connecticut which raises the issue in a slightly different way.  In the case I wrote about, the plaintiffs specifically used race as an element of their injury.  In the new case, the plaintiffs are not doing that.  They are also not using the phrase "wrongful birth" to refer to the basis for their claim.

Should this make a difference? 

The notion of wrongful birth is usually used to refer to a claim that had it not been for the negligent conduct of the defendant the parents would have chosen not to have the child, and that because they did have the child, the defendant should pay for the resulting expenses (and other injuries).  Typically, courts do not recognize recovery for the emotional injury, but might recognize a claim for out of pocket expenses of various types.

In the case I wrote about a few years ago, a white woman provided the eggs and the defendant used sperm from a donor.  The mother had specifically selected the donor to be white.  Instead, the defendant used sperm from a different donor who happened to be African American.  The child born from the procedure is biologically related to the mother but of mixed races.

In the recently filed case in Connecticut, the defendant was supposed to use sperm from the plaintiff/father to fertilize an egg from a donor, so that the child would be biologically related to the father. The defendant used the wrong sperm and thus the couple gave birth to a child who is not biologically related to either one of them and also of mixed races.

Based on those facts, the complaint in the new case simply states that the defendant provided the wrong sperm to the plaintiffs and that the result of the procedure is a child who is not related to the parents at all.  This is the basis for their claimed emotional distress.  The complaint is careful not to use the term "wrongful birth" or to suggest that the race of the child is itself a basis for emotional distress. 

Should the parents in this case be granted a cause of action for the emotional distress if we don't grant one for the parents of a child in the older case?

It seems that the difference comes down to whether the race of the child is the basis of the claim.  Is it?  What do you think?

You can read more about the case in Connecticut here and here.

3M Military Earplug Lawyers To Meet With Judge Appointed To Preside Over Hearing Loss Lawsuits

3M Company currently faces more than 600 product liability lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide by veterans left with hearing loss following service between 2003 and 2015, and the size of the litigation is expected to continue to grow as hearing loss lawyers continue to review and file complaints alleging the company knowingly sold defective earplugs to the U.S. military.

The lawyers involved in the lawsuits will meet for the first time next week with the judge recently appointed to preside over coordinated pretrial proceedings for the claims.

AboutLawsuits has more details on the latest developments here.

Class action on behalf of soldiers and veterans against manufacturers of defective earplugs -- UPDATED

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has agreed to consolidate and centralize all 3M Combat Arms Earplug lawsuits pending throughout the federal court system, each raising similar allegations that veterans were left with permanent hearing damage as a result of design defects with the reversible earplugs that were standard issue by the U.S. military between 2003 and 2015.  You can read one the original complaints here, and get more information here, here and here.

UPDATE 4/13/19:  AboutLawsuits.com has a new post on this issue here.

How Have Tort Defendants Fared at the Illinois Supreme Court Since 1990? --- UPDATED

If you are interested in statistical evidence on litigation issues in Illinois, take a look at the Illinois Supreme Court Review Blog.  In its most recent posts on the subject, they discuss trends in tort law cases.  You can read "How Have Tort Defendants Fared at the Court Since 1990? Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.

UPDATE 4/11/19:  Part 3 of the series is now here.

US Supreme Court to decide another maritime law tort case this term

About a week ago, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case called The Dutra Group v. Batterton, which asks the Court to decide whether a seaman can recover punitive damages in a personal injury suit based on the unseaworthiness of a vessel on which he was working.   The SCotUS blog has an analysis of the oral argument here.  You can also review all the relevant documents in the case and links to more information here.

Video on the first U.S. wrongful death suit related to the Ethiopian Airlines crash

After Ethiopia released preliminary findings from an ongoing investigation into the Ethiopian Airlines flight that crashed last month and after the first American wrongful death lawsuit against Boeing was filed, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg stated that "It’s our responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it. And we know how to do it."  (See here.)

Democracy now, has a report including an interview with the plaintiffs in that first lawsuit, filed against Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration here.  The first part of the report are statements by family members expressing their emotional loss.

At the 22:46 mark, the attorney for the plaintiffs explains some of the evidence in support of their claims.

NY Times article on lawsuits against Purdue Pharma for its role in fostering the opioid crisis

This morning the New York Times has posted an article on the lawsuits filed against the Sackler family and Purdue Pharmaceuticals for its role in the opioid crisis.  You can read it here.