Walter R. Sanders and Earlean Sanders v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Walter R. Sanders and Earlean Sanders v. United States

387 F.2d 142, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1967

Docket24731_1

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 387 F.2d 142 (Walter R. Sanders and Earlean Sanders v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walter R. Sanders and Earlean Sanders v. United States, 387 F.2d 142, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4257 (5th Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This Federal Tort Claims Act suit, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b) (1962), seeking damages for negligent medical treatment by government doctors of injuries earlier sustained by Mr. Sanders while in the course of his work as a government employee, was dismissed on the ground that the exclusive remedy was the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. 5 U.S. C.A. § 8116(c) (Supp. 1966). As have other courts which have considered the problem, our decisions repeatedly show that the dismissal was clearly correct. See Aho v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 885, cert. denied, 1967, 389 U.S. 930, 88 S.Ct. 292, 19 L.Ed.2d 282; Balancio v. United States, 2 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 135, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 875, 80 S.Ct. 139, 4 L.Ed.2d 114; Somma v. United States, 3 Cir., 1960, 283 F.2d 149. Cf. United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This Federal Tort Claims Act suit, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b) (1962), seeking damages for negligent medical treatment by government doctors of injuries earlier sustained by Mr. Sanders while in the course of his work as a government employee, was dismissed on the ground that the exclusive remedy was the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act. 5 U.S. C.A. § 8116(c) (Supp. 1966). As have other courts which have considered the problem, our decisions repeatedly show that the dismissal was clearly correct. See Aho v. United States, 5 Cir., 1967, 374 F.2d 885, cert. denied, 1967, 389 U.S. 930, 88 S.Ct. 292, 19 L.Ed.2d 282; Balancio v. United States, 2 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 135, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 875, 80 S.Ct. 139, 4 L.Ed.2d 114; Somma v. United States, 3 Cir., 1960, 283 F.2d 149. Cf. United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 F.2d 142, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-r-sanders-and-earlean-sanders-v-united-states-ca5-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack