Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01319/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denver Air Center, Inc.
Appellant
Nolan's R.V. Center, Inc.
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

FIL ...... .J 

United State, £4: .·~of AppealE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tent.h-C{rwit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT DECO 2 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DENVER AIR CENTER, INC.; 

NOLAN'S R.V. CENTER, INC., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 91-1319 

) (D.C. No. 89-M-553) 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS,** Senior 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 1 
Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680, for damages allegedly 

resulting from the negligent special issue of a first-class airman 

medical certificate under 14 C.F.R. § 67.19. On its motion to 

dismiss or, for summary judgment, defendant 

contended, 

alternatively, 

and the district court determined, that plaintiffs' 

claims are within the 

liability in 28 U.S.C. 

discretionary function exception to 

§ 2680(a). Plaintiffs appeal from the 

resulting grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. We 

affirm. 

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de 

novo, applying the same standard as applied by the district court. 

Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1230 (10th Cir. 

1990). Summary judgment should be granted only if "there is no 

genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party 

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56 (c). 

The facts are adequately set out in the district court's 

Memorandum Opinion and Order entered August 13, 1991. We find it 

unnecessary to repeat them here because the district court 

correctly concluded that, although there are disputes of fact, it 

is unnecessary to decide them. None of the disputes of fact are 

material because the conduct at issue, the special issue of an 

airman medical certificate, is a discretionary decision which 

necessarily implicates policy concerns--specifically, the safety 

of air commerce. See 14 C.F.R. § 67.19(a). The decision to 

special issue an airman medical certificate is, 

2 

therefore, 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 2 
I, 

shielded from tort liability by the discretionary function 

exception, no matter how negligently the decision may have been 

made. 

We have considered plaintiffs' arguments carefully and affirm 

the order of the district court for substantially the same reasons 

set forth in the district court's Memorandum Opinion and Order 

entered August 13, 1991, a copy of which is attached. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 3 
• 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 89-M-553 

lJHIT[D t ' L E D 

STAT[S DISTRICT COURT. 

R EC E IVE D O[NV[R, COLORADO . 

DENVER AIR CENTER, INC. and NOLAN'S R.V. CENTER, INC., AUG l ~ . 

AUG 1 4 1jjM 1991 

Plaintiff, ES R. MANsp~ 

d HEENGARO SENTER (;.AKER 

GOLDFARB&RICE - __ CLERK v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

MATSCH, Judge 

TI:tis is an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-80. 

Nolan's R.V. Center, Inc. as the owner, and Denver Air Center, Inc. as lessee of a 1981 Cessna 441 

Conquest airplane seek to recover their losses arising from a fatal crash of that aircraft on the night of 

August 28, 1986, when the plane was being flown bi/ Jack Meador, a pilot employed bi/ Denver Air 

Center. The plaintiffs claim that the cause of the crash was acceleration vertigo suffered bi/ the pilot 

who had lost his vestibular abilities as a result of the surgical removal of an acoustic tumor from his 

right ear on April 30; 1986. The claim against the government is that the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) negligently issued a First-Class Medical Certificate for Jack Meador. More 

particularly, the plaintiffs claim that the special issuance of that certificate was in violation of FAA 

regulations; that the agency did not adequately review medical records before the issuance; that the 

agency did not ..-.=t an adequate test for equilibrium: that the agency failed to restrict Meador from 

of the medical certificate. 

The relevant standard for a First-Class Medical Certificate is in 14 C.F.R. § 67.13(c), which 

requires •no disturbance in equilibrium.• Generally, pilots are examined by an aviation medical examiner 

1 

-

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 4 
(AME) who issues or denies medical certificates based upon compliance or non-compliance with the 

applicable medical standards. ?ilots who do not meet the medical standards may appfy for special 

issuance of a medical certificate and under 14 C.F.R. § 67.19, the Federal Air Surgeon has discretionary 

authority for a special issue of a medical certificate if the applicant shows that his duties can be 

performed without endangering air commerce. The Federal Air Surgeon may authorize a special 

medical flight test. a practical test. or medical evaluation for this purpose. The authority of the Federal 

Air Surgeon has been delegated to the Chief, Aeromedical Certification Branch under 14 C.F.R. § 

67.19(1). 

Pilot Meador had a First-Class Medical Certificate before his surgery. The surgeon, Dr. Goin, 

wrote two letters, dated June 3, 1986, and July 8, 1986, concerning Meador's physical condition. On 

July 14, 1986, James Evans, a medical records examiner at the Aeromedical Certification Branch of the 

FAA in Oklahoma City, reviewed Jack Meador's medical file, including those two letters from Dr. Goin. 

Evans apparently did not consider equilibrium to be a problem with this pilot Evans authorized Meador 

to take a special medical flight test for. defective hearing in his right ear and sent Meador a First-Class 

Medical Certificate valid for that flight test. Evans also sent an unrestricted First-Class Medical 

Certificate to the FAA District Office for issuance to Meador upon his completion of the special medical 

flight test by an FAA Safety Inspector. 

The defendant has moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. contending that 

the plaintiffs' claims are within the discretionary function exception to liability in 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). 

The question must be considered under Rule 56 because the defendant relies on facts which 

are not included in the plaint~' complaint. The plaintiffs claim there are material facts in dispute. The 

plaintiffs have • ·•.. support for the contention that the medical flight test required by Evans was -.--.•-. ··"'-t-..;, · 

not given. The fliK records do not include the appropriate record for such a test. Meador's pilot's 

flight log does not show it and the aircraft's log does not show that the plane was used for the test. 

Additionally, the plaintiffs have submitted the deposition of Dr. James Hill, the Aviation Medical Examiner, 

who deferred decision on the issuance of the medical certificate to the FAA because of deafness and 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 5 
• 

because of the surgery. The latter reason was not disclosed in Or. Hill's letter. 

It is not necessary to decide the disputed facts because the plaintiffs' claims are based upon 

the negligent iaullnce of a medical certificate and that agency act comes within the discretionary 

function exception. It is not relevant whether the negligence was the failure of Or. Hill, the AME, to 

evaluate - Meadors condition and communicate it accurately; whether Evans was incompetent or 

negligently read the medical file; whether Robbins failed to conduct an adequate medical flight test or 

whether the agency failed to apply a medical standard of requiring one year for r8COt/ery from the 

surgery. 

The Supreme Court has recently given new guidance for the application of the discretionary 

function exception in United States v. Gaubert. 111 S.Ct 1267 (1991). There, the Court held that the 

exception affords protection for •ctay-to-day8 operational decisions based on policy. Clearly, the decision 

to issue a medical certificate involves the weighing of the pilot's interest in his employment against the 

safety of air commerce. The conduct in question in this case is the issuance of the certificate and that 

is a policy decision for which there can be no liability under the Federal Tort Claims Ad. however 

negligently the decision may have been made. This result is consistent with a very recent decision of 

the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Redmon v. United States, 934 F.2d 1151 {10th Cir. 1991), applying 

the exception to a claim c:A negligent removal of a 'VFR-only" restriction on a pilot's rating. ~dingly, 

the defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted. 

The defendant also has asserted the statute of limitations defense. The administrative claim was 

filed on August 30, 1988, two years and two days after the plane crash. There is no basis for a finding 

that the cause of acd0r'I ~ on the day of the accident or the following day. Accordingly, there 

-:if-"' 

is no merit to td tJe ~ Imitations contention. 

Having J!lliiniili..ad that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by the discretionary function exception, 

it is 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 6 
ORDERED that the defendant's motion fOf summary judgment is granted and the judgment of 

dismissal wi1 .... 

Dated: Aug at 13, 1991 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 7 
• 

Case Number: 89-M-553 

I cenify ~ I mailed a copy of the attached to the following: 

Dated: a, /31 } 9Cf/ 

James Goldfarb 

400 S. Colorado Blvd. #700 

Denver, CO 80222-0833 

Colleen L Contin 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

u. s. Department of Justice 

P. 0. Box 14271 

Washington, D.C. 20044-4271 

Stephen D. Taylor 

Assistant United States Attorney 

• :· 

. 

' 

5 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 8 
AO •50 IR•v. 5/8Sl Judgment in• Civil Cat• e 

Fl LEO 

UNITIDStAlDDIITiL'1cou,ll 

~niteb ~tates ~ istrtct '1IouWCOI.ORM)() AUG 131991 --------------- DISTRICT OF _COIDRMX:> ____ --irrrr.a---mT-.---,rm-----

DEWER AIR CENIER, m:., et al., JAMU R. MANSPEAKER .• ClERK 

Plaintiffs, 

JUDGMEN I IN A Ci v IL CASE 

V. 

WITED STATES CF AMERICA, 

Defendant. CASE NUMBER: 89-M-553 -

O Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered 

its verdict. 

(3 Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the G04ft. The jssue, have been tried or heard and a 

decision has been rendered. Pursuant to mem:>r~un opl.Illon anc1 oroer entered bV 

J\Xige Richard P. Matsch on ~ 13, 1991, 

IT IS OROEREO ANO ADJUDGED 

that the deferoant's IIDtion for. sumary j\Xigment is qranted and this civil action 

is dismisse:i. 

~ 13, 1991 

Date 

EUERED 

OIi 11£ l)(DET 

AUS 13 19~, 

WIES L IL',IISPEAl(ER Cl.Ef\:\ 

If·---

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 9 
f 

EXHIBIT C 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 10 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

,' i . ~ j 

Civil Acticn-No.19-M-.5.53 

DENVER AIR CENTER, INC. and NOLAN'S RV CENTER, INC., VV/ 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

PLAIN tlf f'S NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Notice is hereby given that DENVER AIR CENTER, INC. and NOLAN'S RV 

CENTER, INC., Plaintiffs above-named, by their attorneys, GREENGARD SENTER 

GOLDFARB &: RICE, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth 

Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this action on the 13th day 

of August, 1991. 

•""': ---- ... · .. 

.. :.:~~---

GREENGARD SENTER GOLDFARB &: RICE 

By~~~~~~~~~==---­ James E. Gol f 

Steven J. Daw 

A ttomeys for Plaintiffs 

400 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 700 

Denver, Colorado 80222 

{303) 320-0509 

Telecopier: {303) 320-0210 

Appellate Case: 91-1319 Document: 010110149230 Date Filed: 12/02/1992 Page: 11