Alexis Witt v. United States

379 F. App'x 559
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 14, 2010
Docket09-15339
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 379 F. App'x 559 (Alexis Witt v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alexis Witt v. United States, 379 F. App'x 559 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Alexis Witt appeals the district court’s dismissal of her wrongful death action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that her husband, a member of the Air Force, died as the result of negli *560 gent medical treatment in a military hospital.

In Feres v. United States, the Supreme Court established an exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity “for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” 340 U.S. 135, 146, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950). We have consistently held that claims for medical malpractice in military facilities are barred by Feres. See, e.g., Persons v. United States, 925 F.2d 292, 296 (9th Cir.1991); Veillette v. United States, 615 F.2d 505, 507 (9th Cir.1980). Although Witt’s husband may have been on some form of leave when the injury occurred, duty status is only one factor in the analysis. See Costo v. United States, 248 F.3d 863, 867 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, we have specifically held that Feres applies even when service members were off duty, emphasizing that they received care in a military hospital based on their status as service members. See, e.g., Persons, 925 F.2d at 296; Veillette, 615 F.2d at 507. The same analysis controls the present case.

Although we acknowledge the tragic circumstances underlying this lawsuit, we are bound by precedent of the Supreme Court and our court to affirm the district court’s dismissal.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Klay v. Panetta
924 F. Supp. 2d 8 (District of Columbia, 2013)
Witt ex rel. Estate of Witt v. United States
180 L. Ed. 2d 887 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
379 F. App'x 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexis-witt-v-united-states-ca9-2010.