NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 1920

___________ HE RN AN MORE NO,

A ppel l ant v . UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 01225) D is tr ic t J u d g e : H o n o ra b le J a m e s F . M c C lu re , J r.

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y12, 2010 B efor e: SM I T H , FI SH E R and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: J ul y14, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM H ernan M or eno appe al s pr o s e fr om the j udgm entent er ed aga i ns thi m bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a. Forthe r eas ons t hat f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m .M oreno st at es that he i s aband on i ng his cl ai m s r egardi ng the U nit ed S t at es’ 1 al l eged ne gl i gence for : ( 1) s endi ng hi m t o the ey e cl i ni c w i thoutan i nt erpr et er( he s peaks onl ySpani s h) and ( 2) fai l i ng t o pr ovi de hi m w i th appr opr i at e pai n m edi cat i on. 2 M or eno, a fe der al pr i s oner , fi l ed an a ct i on al l egi ng thathe w as ent i t l ed t o r el i ef un der the F ederal T ortC l ai m s A ct(“FT C A ”), 28 U . S . C . § 2 67 4, du e t o the U nit ed S t at es’ al l eged mi s handl i ng of hi s m edi cal car e. A s i s r el evantt o the appe al , M or eno’ s amended 1 compl ai ntas s ert ed that , “as a r es ul tof the i nadequa t e ca r e I beca m e bl i nd i n one ey e due t o the w or k t hatthe governm entcontr act s out . ” H e expl ai ned that , i n N ovember2004, the medi cal depart m entatthe U ni t ed St at e Peni t ent i aryatA l l enw ood s enthi m t o an out s i de cl i ni c w her e tw o doct or s per form ed l as ers ur geryw i thoutknow i ng thatther e w as a “ ste n t” in h is rig h t eye, a n d th a t “th e p ro c e d u re b u rn t th e ste n t in h is e y e m a k in g h im perm anent l ybl i nd and s uffe ra l otof pai n. ” T he U ni t ed St at es fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s and fors um m aryj udgm enton the g rou n d that itis no t l iable u n d er the F T C A fo r th e a cti o n s o f th e m ed ical care p rov iders beca us e theyar e i ndepende ntcontr act or s , notgovernm entempl oy ees . See U ni t ed St at es v. O r l eans , 425 U . S. 807, 814 ( 1976) . M or eno r es ponded byas s ert i ng thatthe U ni t ed St at es w as r es pons i bl e forhi s i nj urybeca us e ther e w as “a c l earover l appi ng of r es pons i bi l i t i es and an i nt er changi ng of m edi cal i nform at i on” r egar di ng the tr eatm entfor hi s ey e. T he M agi s tr at e J udge r ej ect ed thi s ar gum entand agr eed w i th the U ni t ed St at es thatthe “a l l egat i ons i n t he amended compl ai ntand admi ni s tr at i ve t or tcl ai m l ead t o the in f e re n c e th a t th e [ m e d ica l p ro v id e rs] a re in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to rs.” T h e M a g istra teM or eno appe ar s t o as s ertthatthe U ni t ed St at es w as negl i genti n not 2 p ro v id in g th e o u tsid e d o c to rs w ith h is m e d ica l re c o rd s. B e c a u se h e d id n o t ra ise th is cl ai m befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t , w e w i l l notcons i deri ton appea l . See B r ennerv. L ocal 5 1 4 , U n ite d B h d . o f

C a rp e n te rs & J o in e rs o f A m ., 9 2 7 F .2 d 1 2 8 3 , 1 2 9 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 3 Ju d g e a lso n o ted th at, ev en if i t w as n o t r ec o m m en d ing d ism issal bas ed o n the F T C A ’s in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to r e x c e p tio n , ita g re e d w ith th e U n ited S tate s th a t th e c laim sh o u ld b e d ism issed b ec au se M o ren o d id n o t fi le a c erti fica te of m eritan d o b tai n an ex p ert w i tnes s , as i s r equi r ed byPenns y l vani a l aw . A ft err ej ect i ng M or eno’ s obj ect i ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on and gr ant ed th e U n ite d S ta te s ’ m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. M oreno n ow app eal s. 2 II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . U nderthe FT C A , the U ni t ed St at es i s l i abl e fort or t s as a pr i vat e i ndi vi dual . See 28 U . S. C . § 2674. Feder al pr i s oner s m ayr ecove rdamages fr om the governm entfor in ju ri e s s u s ta in e d d u ri n g c o n f in e m e n t a s a re s u lt o f

n e g lig e n c e b yg o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e s . See U ni t ed St at es v. M uni z, 374 U . S. 150 ( 1963) . T he U ni t ed St at es i s notl i abl e under th e F TCA u n l e s s th e a l l e g e d t o r t f e a s e ri s a n e mp l o y e e o f th e g o v e rn me n t . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. §§ 1346( b) , 2671. T hus , s ui t s agai ns ti ndepende ntcontr act or s ar e notvi abl e. See O r l eans , 425 U . S. at813- 14; N or m an v. U ni t ed St at es , 111 F. 3d 356 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . “The cr i t i cal fac t orus ed t o di s t i ngui s h a fe der al agenc yempl oy ee f r om an i ndepende ntB e c a u se w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt o n th e g ro u n d th a t M o re n o ’s c laim is 3 b a rre d b yth e F T C A ’s in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to r e x e m p tio n , w e d o n o t co n sid e r h is a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g w h e th e r h e sh o u ld b e re q u ire d to f ile a c e rtific a te o f

m e rit. 4 contr act ori s w hetherthe governm enthas the pow ert o ‘ contr ol the det ai l ed phy s i cal per form ance of the contr act or . ’ ” N or m an, 111 F. 3d at357 ( ci t i ng O r l eans , 425 U . S. at 814) . U nderthi s s t andar d, “i ti s notnece s s aryforthe G overnm entt o cont i nual l ycontr ol al l as pect s of the i ndi vi dual ’ s act i vi t i es , s o l ong as i thas the author i tyt o do s o gi ven the natur e of the t as k. ” Patt er s on & W i l derC ons tr . C o. , I nc. v. U ni t ed St at es , 226 F. 3d 1269, 1 2 7 4 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tcorr ect l yhel d thatthe U ni t ed St at es cannotbe hel d l i abl e for an yn eg li g en ce attri b u table to th e m ed ical pro v iders w h o tr ea ted M o ren o . M o ren o ’s amended compl ai ntand admi ni s tr at i ve t or tcl ai m r epea t edl yr efe rt o the phy s i ci ans as “contr act or s , ” and he r es ponded t o the governm ent ’ s m ot i on byar gui ng onl ythatthe m edi cal pr ovi der s and the pr i s on offi ci al s “s har ed r es pons i bi l i ty ” as t o hi s m edi cal car e. E ven i f M or eno’ s as s ert i on i s corr ect , thi s does notal l ow forthe i nfer ence thatthe U ni t ed St at es had the “a uthor i ty ” t o contr ol the medi cal pr ovi der s ’ r i ghtt o exer ci s e i ndepende nt m edi cal j udgm ent . See N or m an, 111 F. 3d at357; C arr i l l o v. U ni t ed St at es , 5 F. 3d 1302, 1 3 0 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ T h e c irc u its a re u n a n im o u s in h o ld in g th a t a c o n tra c t p h y sic ian is n o t an e m p loy ee o f th e g o v ern m en t un d er the F T C A . ”). A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt p r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e d th i s c l a i m. 3 B a se d o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f ju d g m e n t infavo r of the U nit ed S t at es.

5