Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06368/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06368-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lester Pace
Appellant
Yvonne Pace
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. -

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E PAp"°tl.ls U ,.__,J St.ates Court 01 ·...-

ntwu Ter.th Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT 

YVONNE PACE; LESTER PACE, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

AUG 2 1 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-6368 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-519-W) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Yvonne Pace sued the United States under the 

Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries she sustained while being 

treated by a military doctor at an air force base hospital. Her 

husband, Lester Pace, also sued for loss of consortium. Pace, who 

was on active duty as a captain at the time of her injuries, 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6368 Document: 010110132132 Date Filed: 08/21/1991 Page: 1 
-

alleged that she sought medical care for a routine urinary tract 

infection; that her treating doctor administered a drug he should 

have known might cause, as it did, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; and 

that as a result, she was left with scarring over a large 

percentage of her body and was placed on retirement status. 

The government sought and obtained dismissal under the 

doctrine of Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), relying 

upon our opinion in Madsen v. United States, 841 F.2d 1011 (10th 

Cir. 1987). 

We agree with the district court that Madsen controls, and 

that the district court properly dismissed the action. The 

attempts to distinguish Captain Pace's situation from that in 

Madsen are unavailing. Plaintiffs in both cases were retired at 

the time of the action, and both argued that their medical 

treatment was not incident to their service in the military. It 

is also apparent that in Madsen the plaintiff, as here, was not 

ordered to the hospital. We see no principled way of 

distinguishing the cases to permit different results. 

We also agree that Mr. Pace's claim for loss of consortium is 

derivative and is therefore also barred by the Feres doctrine. 

See Kendrick v. United States, 877 F.2d 1201, 1206, 1207 (4th Cir. 

1989), cert. dismissed, 110 s. Ct. 1104 (1990); Gaspard v. United 

States, 713 F.2d 1097, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 466 

U.S. 975 (1984). 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-6368 Document: 010110132132 Date Filed: 08/21/1991 Page: 2