E L D

- 0 0 9 N OT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THI RD CIRC UIT

____ ___ ____

No. 2 1

- 3 0 7 4

__________ _

JAIN

- MIECELL IRWIN ROBERSON

, App ellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF US NAVY;

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; CYNTHIA E. ABAIR; BRA NCH

HEALTH CLINI C

- MARINE CORPS; AIR STATION MIRAMAR

_____________________________ _______

O n Appeal from the United St a te s District Court

for the M i d d l e D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C. C i v i l No. 1

- 2 0

- c v

- 0 2 0 5 8 )

D istrict Judge: Honorable Y v e t t e K a n e

______ _________ _______ _____ ____ _ ___ _

Submitt e d o n A p p e l l e e s ’ M o t i o n f o r S umm a ry A ction

P ursuant t o Third Circu it L

. A

. R

. 2 7.4 and I.O.P. 10 .6

J a n u a r y 1 0

, 2 0 2 2

Before: J O R D A N

, P O R T E R

, a n d M A T E Y

, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 1 3 , 2022 )

__ _______

OPINIO N *

_________

* This disposition i s n ot an o pinion of the full C ourt and pursuant to I .O .P. 5. 7 does not

consti tute binding preceden t.2

PER CURIAM

J a i n

- M i e c e l l I r w i n R o b e r s o n i s a v e t e r a n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s N a v y

. I n N o v e m b e r

2 0 2 0

, h e b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s u n d e r t h e F e d e r a l T o r t C l a i m s A c t

( F T C A )

. H e c l a i m e d t h a t i n 2 0 1 0

, w h i l e h e w a s o n a c t i v e d u t y

, N a v y m e d i c a l p r o v i d e r s

n e g l i g e n t l y failed t o d i a g n o s e h i m w i t h s l e e p a p n e a

. 1 A s a r e s u l t o f t h e i r n e g l i g e n t

t r e a t m e n t

, h e a l l e g e d

, h e s u f f e r e d a d v e r s e e f

f e c t s u n t i l 2 0 1 8

, w h e n h e w a s p r o p e r l y

d i a g n o s e d

. T h e G o v e r n m e n t m o v e d t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o n

t h e g r o u n d t h a t R o b e r s o n ’ s c l a i m w a s ba r r e d b y t h e F e r e s d o c t r i n e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n a n d d i s m i s s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t

. R o b e r s o n a p p e a l e d

. T h e G o v e r n m e n t

n o w m o v e s f

o r s u m m a r y a f

f i r m a n c e

.

W e g r a n t t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n a n d w i l l s u m m a r i l y a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s

o r d e r b e c a u s e n o substantial q u e s t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d b y t h i s a p p e a l

. S e e 3 d C i r

. L

. A

. R

.

2 7

. 4 ; 3 d C i r

. I

. O

. P

. 1 0

. 6

. I n F e r e s v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t the

FTCA, which established a limited waiver of soverei g n immunity from suit, did not

extend t o “injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of

activity incident to servic e.” 3 4 0 U

. S

. 1 3 5

, 1 4 6 ( 1 9 5 0 )

. T h e d o c t r i n e a p p l i e s t o i n j u r i e s

s u s t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t o f medical malpractic e by military doc to rs

. S e e

, e

. g

. , Loughney v.

United States , 839 F.2d 186, 188 (3d Cir. 1988) ( b a r r i n g m a l p r a c t i c e s u i t b a s e d o n

1 Rob erson initially alle ged that he was treated by me dical person nel at the D e p a r t m e n t o f

V e t e r a n s A f

f a i r s ( V A ) , but he later agreed with the Government that he r ec e i ved

treatment at the Naval Med ical Cente r San Di ego.3

a l l e g e d l y n e g l i g e n t m e d i c a l a d v i c e o f A r m y d o c t o r t h a t p l a i n t i f f u n d e r g o s u r g e r y f

o r

a b d o m i n a l p a i n ) ; P e l u s o v

. U n i t e d S t a t e s

, 4 7 4 F

. 2 d 6 0 5

, 6 0 6 ( 3 d C i r

. 1 9 7 3 ) ( b a r r i n g

malpractice s u i t b a s e d o n A r m y d o c t o r s ’ a l l e g e d i m p r o p e r d i a g n o s i s a n d t r e a t m e n t o f

r u p t u r e d a p p e n d i x ) ; Henning v. Unite d States , 446 F.2d 774, 776

– 7 7 (3d Cir. 1971)

( b a r r i n g c l a i m that A rmy doctor failed to di agn o s e tuberculosis because

, t h e C o u r t

e x p l a i n e d

, “the negligent act, failing to advise [P laintiff] of his condition before

discharge, occurred while [Plaintiff] was in the service”)

. B e c a u s e R o b e r s o n c o m p l a i n s

o f t r e a t m e n t p r o v i d e d b y N a v y d o c t o r s w h i l e h e w a s o n a c t i v e d u t y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

c o r r e c t l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t F e r e s b a r s h i s c l a i m

. T o t h e e x t e n t t h a t R o b e r s o n a r g u e s t h a t

F e r e s i s i n a p p l i c a b l e b e c a u s e h i s s l e e p a p n e a i s n o t “ s e r v i c e c o n n e c t e d

, ” w e h a v e m a d e

c l e a r t h a t w h a t c a u s e d h i s i n j u r y i s i m m a t e r i a l ; r a t h e r

, “ [ i ] t i s s i m p l y t h e m i l i t a r y s t a t u s o f

t h e c l a i m a n t t h a t i s d i s p o s i t i v e

. ” L o u g h n e y

, 8 3 9 F

. 2 d a t 1 8 8

. A n d

, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t h e

a t t e m p t s to r e m o v e h i s c a s e f r o m F e r e s ’ s r e a c h b y a r g u i n g t h a t ( 1 ) h i s t r e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n

w a s a c t i n g ou t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f h i s d u t i e s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n j u r y

, a n d ( 2 ) he received

m o r e n e g l i g e n t t r e a t m e n t a f t e r h e w a s d i s c h a r g e d

, “[w]e generally do not consider

arguments ra is ed for the first time on appeal

. ” O rie v. Dist. Att ’ y Allegheny Cty. , 946

F.3d 187, 195 (3 d Cir. 2019)

.

W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d R o b e r s o n ’ s r e m a i n i n g a r g u m e n t s a n d c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e y a r e

m e r i t l e s s

. A ccordingly, we g r a n t t h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s m o t i o n a n d w ill s u m m a r i l y affirm

the District Court’s o r d e r

.