Commissioned Corps E-Bulletin | ||||||
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Section 233 Precludes Suits
Against PHS Officers and Employees |
||||||
On 3 May 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that officers and employees of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) may not be sued in their individual capacities under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents,
403 U. S. 388 (1971). In Bivens, the Court held that a claim could be brought against a federal agent acting within the scope of his authority for Constitutional violations. However, Section 233(a) of Title 42, United States Code states that the remedy provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injury or death resulting from the performance of medical or related functions by “any commissioned officer or PHS employee . . . while acting within the scope of his office or employment, shall be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding . . . against the officer or employee.”
After a series of unfortunate incidents, Francisco Castaneda filed suit against, among others, the United States under the FTCA for medical malpractice, and against five PHS officers and employees for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the U.S. Constitution, before he died in February 2008 from cancer. The lower courts ruled in Castaneda’s favor but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officers and employees, holding that section 233 precludes Bivens actions against individual PHS officers and employees for harms arising out of alleged constitutional violations committed while acting within the scope of their office or employment. The Court relied on the clear text of the statute that provides that the FTCA remedy against the U.S. “shall be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding” for injuries or death resulting from the performance of medical or related functions by PHS personnel. Therefore, PHS employees and Corps officers cannot be sued or held personally liable under such circumstances. To read the full opinion of the Court, see http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1529.pdf |
||||||
Return to current issue front page | ||||||
|
||||||