The push to finally allow troops to sue the military over medical malpractice just got a major boost in Congress

news

Sailors from Naval Medical Center San Diego (NMCSD), currently assigned to USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) works on a mock patient during a mass casualty drill for Mercy Exercise (MERCEX) in December 2018.

(U.S. Navy/Cameron Pinske)

Editor's Note: This article by Patricia Kime originally appeared on Military.com, a leading source of news for the military and veteran community.

A senator has taken up the cause to negate a controversial court ruling that bars service members from suing the federal government in cases of medical malpractice by military doctors.


Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, has introduced an amendment to the Senate's proposed defense policy bill that would allow military personnel to file claims for injury or death caused by improper medical or dental care or during research studies at a military medical facility.

Troops are prevented from suing the federal government for injuries deemed incidental to military service, including medical malpractice, under a 1950 court ruling, Feres v. United States. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that service members fall under an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act -- the law that allows citizens to sue the government.

Kennedy's amendment mirrors similar legislation introduced in April in the House, which seeks to exempt medical negligence or wrongful acts by military physicians from the ruling, commonly referred to as the Feres doctrine.

Under the proposed amendment, troops and their families would be allowed to sue, except in cases of care rendered at battalion aid stations, in combat or at a field facility in a combat zone.

The Senate plans to debate the defense bill this week; whether any amendments will be considered and included in the final draft has not been announced. In past years, fewer than a handful of amendments have received a roll call vote.

In the House, Rep. Jackie Speier, D-California, has sponsored the Sgt. First Class Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act, named for an ArmyGreen Beret and former Marine who has terminal lung cancer and whose military doctors failed to follow up on a suspicious mass found during a pre-training medical screening.

Speier said the legislation, which has been forwarded to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, is needed because the Feres ruling has "deprived troops of their legal rights."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in three separate cases in 1950 that the Federal Tort Claims Act, the law that permits citizens sue the government for wrongdoings by federal employees or agencies, does not apply to most service members for injuries resulting from the negligence of other military personnel.

The justices said the ruling was needed to ensure that Congress was not "burdened with private bills on behalf of military and naval personnel."

Critics have argued, however, that the compensation package provided to troops or their families following a major medical error in a U.S. military medical facility is not sufficient to care for severely injured or ill personnel or their families in cases of death.


Speier's proposed legislation was the first introduced in nearly a decade challenging Feres in medical malpractice cases. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat who passed away in 2017 after serving in Congress for 20 years, introduced the Carmelo Rodriguez Military Medical Accountability Act in 2010.

The bill was named for a Marine sergeant who died at age 29 in 2007 from melanoma. His military doctors found an unusual growth and labeled it in Rodriguez's records as a melanoma, but never told him and didn't treat it.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against hearing a case that challenged the legitimacy of the Feres ruling. In similar cases during the past several decades, the justices have said that Congress needed to change the law if it wanted troops to have the right to sue.

As with the House bill, Kennedy's amendment would apply to claims pending on the date the bill becomes law and any claims arising after the bill is signed.

This article originally appeared on Military.com

More articles from Military.com:

Sailors from Coastal Riverine Squadron (CRS) 1 conduct category III qualifications on the M2A1 heavy machine gun at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif. CRS-1 is qualifying for future mobilization requirements. (U.S. Navy/Hospital Corpsman 1st Class Kenji Shiroma)

The Navy is considering giving Ma Deuce a quiet new update.

Read More Show Less
A competitor performs push-ups during the physical fitness event at the Minnesota Army National Guard Best Warrior Competition on April 4, 2019, at Camp Ripley, Minnesota. (Minnesota National Guard photo by Sgt. Sebastian Nemec)

Despite what you may have heard, the Army has not declared war on mustaches.

The Army W.T.F! Moments Facebook page on Monday posted a memo written by a 3rd Infantry Division company commander telling his soldiers that only the fittest among them will be allowed to sprout facial hair under their warrior nostrils.

"During my tenure at Battle Company, I have noticed a direct correlation between mustaches and a lack of physical fitness," the memo says. "In an effort to increase the physical fitness of Battle Company, mustaches will not be authorized for any soldier earning less than a 300 on the APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test]."

Read More Show Less
Task & Purpose

I don't always drop everything to spend a few hours with a short, squat Marine, but when I do, you can bet it's for Chesty.

Read More Show Less
A U.S. Army Soldier assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, consoles a fellow Soldier after sleeping on the ground in a designated sleeping area on another cold evening, between training exercises during NTC 17-03, National Training Center, Ft. Irwin, CA., Jan. 15, 2017. (U.S. Army/Spc. Tracy McKithern)

The Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) is the largest official database of U.S. military media available for public consumption. It is also an occasional source of unexpected laughs, like this gem from a live fire exercise that a public affairs officer simply tagged 'Fire mortar boom.' In the world of droll data entry and too many acronyms, sometimes little jokes are their own little form of rebellion, right?

But some DVIDS uploads, however, come with captions and titles that cut right to the core, perfectly capturing the essence of life in the U.S. military in a way that makes you sigh, facepalm, and utter a mournful, 'too real.'

Read More Show Less

The U.S. military does not need Iraqi permission to fly close air support and casualty evacuation missions for U.S. troops in combat, a top spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS clarified on Tuesday.

Army Col. James Rawlinson clarified that the Iraqis do not need to approve missions in emergency circumstances after Task & Purpose reported on Monday that the U.S. military needed permission to fly CAS missions for troops in a fight.

Read More Show Less