WINFRED DAN VALLANCE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a serviceman's medical malpractice claim against the Navy arises from activity incident to service and is therefore barred under the FTCA.
A naval officer received medical treatment at a Navy hospital for head pains, where an arteriogram was performed. He later returned with increased pai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Activity Incident To Service cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiff, Winfred Dan Vallanee, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Federal Tort Claims Act [F.T.C.A.]1 suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
In April 1974, while serving in active duty as a United States naval officer, Val-lance entered the Navy Regional Medical Center in Oakland, California, for diagnosis of head pains. United States Navy personnel performed an arteriogram, the results of which they termed normal. In August 1976, Vallanee returned to the hospital with increased pain. Hospital personnel discovered and removed a large tumor. Allegedly, the April test results showed the tumor, but the results had been misread. Vallanee charged that hospital personnel discovered the mistake after he left in April, but did not notify him. Vallanee contends that the delay in treatment increased the degree of permanent damage he suffered.
In Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), the Su preme Court interpreted the F.T.C.A. to exclude liability for injuries to servicemen “where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” 340 U.S. at 146, 71 S.Ct. at 159, 95 L.Ed. at 161. Vallance argues that in seeking medical treatment at the Navy hospital he was engaged in “business of his own person,” such that the injuries he sustained through alleged medical malpractice did not arise in the course of activity incident to service.
In Shults v. United States, 421 F. 2d 170 (5th Cir. 1969), a case presenting a factual situation similar to that in the case at bar, we stated:
it is obvious that the injured man could not have been admitted, and would not have been admitted, to the Naval Hospital except for his military status. He was there treated by Naval medical personnel solely because of that status. It inescapably follows that whatever happened to him in that hospital and during the course of that treatment had to be “in the course of activity incident to service!;.]”
421 F. 2d at 171-172. [Citation omitted.] Under Shults, Vallance engaged in activity incident to service in being treated at the Navy hospital while on active duty; therefore, he cannot maintain an action under the F.T.C.A. The order dismissing Val-lanee’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is
AFFIRMED.
. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346 et seq. (1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stanley v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 639 F.2d 1146 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
Veillette v. United States, 615 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1980)
-
Scales v. United States, 685 F.2d 970 (5th Cir. 1982)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1950)
- Shults v. The United States, 421 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1969)