Document: 499 U.S. 160 111 S.Ct. 1180 113 L.Ed.2d 134 UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners,v.Marcus S. SMITH, al. No. 89-1646. Argued Nov. 7, 1990. Decided March 20, 1991. Syllabus Respondents Smith filed suit in the District Court against one Dr. Marshall, alleging that he had negligently injured respondent Dominique during his birth at a United States Army hospital Italy. The court granted Government's motion to substitute itself for Marshall pursuant Gonzalez Act, which provides military medical personnel employment-related torts, Government is be substituted as defendant and proceed under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). then dismissed on ground FTCA excludes recovery injuries sustained abroad. of Appeals reversed, holding neither nor Employees Liability Reform Compensation 1988 (Act) required substitution or otherwise immunized Marshall. It ruled § 5 Act—which, with two exceptions not here relevant, confers absolute immunity employees by making an action exclusive remedy their torts—applies only when remedy. Held: immunizes from even exception precludes Government. Pp. 165-175. (a) Act's language confirms makes mode recovery. Congress recognized requiring would sometimes foreclose tort plaintiff's altogether it provided 6 suits proceeding are subject "limitations exceptions" applicable actions. Moreover, light 5's express preserving employee liability, third liability bars cannot implied, absent contrary legislative intent. Furthermore, enactment 9 Tennessee Valley Authority its employees—supports no inference scope States. 165-169. (b) Respondents' several arguments support decision below rejected. Construing preclude Marshall's does result implied repeal Act. functions solely protect malpractice create rights favor plaintiffs, whose arise instead state foreign law. Since respondents' plaintiffs were created Congress, rule disfavoring repeals implicated limits those rights. Similarly, suggestion was meant apply already protected pre-existing federal statute inconsistent purpose. plain distinction between who covered pre-Act statutes not. clearly aware statutes. Congress' limitations indicates if intended limit protection statutes, have said this expressly. Finally, since nothing imposes any obligations duties care upon physicians, claim involve violation Thus, fall within brought authorized. 169-175. 885 F.2d 650 (CA9 1989), reversed remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, dissenting opinion, post, p. ----. David L. Shapiro, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Walter A. Oleniewski, Rockville, Md., respondents. Justice MARSHALL Court. 1 (Liability Act) relief available persons acting employment. For so injured, "[t]he States" (FTCA) "is other civil money damages." 28 U.S.C. 2679(b)(1). Subject certain exceptions, permits person her employment seek damages One such outside country. See 2680(k). This case presents question whether abroad physician, whom foreign-country therefore suing Government, may nonetheless particular caused injury. We hold alternative 2 * In 1982, while working staff Vicenza, Italy, William served attending physician Hildegard delivery son Dominique. At time, Ms. Smith's husband, Marcus Smith, Sergeant stationed According Smiths, born massive brain damage. 1987, respondents sued Central California, basing jurisdiction diversity citizenship. Smiths alleged negligence Dominique's injuries.1 3 intervened sought 10 1089. torts committed employment, FTCA. §§ 1089(a), (b). also argued that, because arose overseas, excluding abroad, 2680(k), precluded liability. Consequently, concluded, should dismissed. action. App. Pet. Cert. 17a-18a.2 4 1988, appeal pending, enacted amendment took response our ruling Westfall v. Erwin, 484 292, 108 580, 98 619 (1988), held judicially doctrine official provide Westfall, we determined case-by-case basis, according "the contribution effective government contexts" granting "outweighs potential harm individual citizens." U.S., 299, 583. establishes declined recognize common law Westfall. employment.3 On present case, relied new Court's dismissal action.4 essentially same effect found Because occurred argued, action.5 further contended 2680(k) barring occurring dismissing affirmed. Ninth Circuit (1989).6 With respect reasoned although renders employees, applies fact cases arising incurred concluded barred Id., 654-655. 7 certiorari, 496 924, 110 2617, 638 (1990), resolve conflict among Circuits over Government.7 conclude confer reverse. II 8 Section states remedy" . employee" reemphasizes "[a]ny precluded." central whether, designating "exclusive remedy," where means Two provisions confirm first As noted, see n. 5, supra, directs Attorney General appropriate certify named tort. "shall manner [the FTCA] shall actions." 2679(d)(4) (emphasis added). these "exceptions" expressly designated 2680—is provision "arising country." persuades us altogether. second basis interpretation arises preservations 5. declares plaintiff brings: (1) Bivens ac tion,8 seeking constitutional employee; (2) authorizes employee. 2679(b)(2). creation convinces erred inferring preserve "Where explicitly enumerates general prohibition, additional absence evidence intent." Andrus Glover Construction Co., 446 608, 616-617, 100 1905, 1910-1911, 64 548 (1980).9 based construction specialized provisions. (TVA) TVA "act[ions] office employment," 16 831c-2(b)(1), "ex[c]lusive proceeding," 831c-2(a)(1). Under FTCA, 2680(l), liable TVA's activities. inferred must expected shield 2680(l). F.2d, 655. And singled out special grant immunity, all remain ibid. 11 Circuit's analysis rests misunderstanding purpose 9. By terms, invest more than affords employees. Rather, merely TVA, 831c-2(a)(1), rather States, 2679(b)(1), adjustment scheme perfectly sensible, activities, "[m]ay sue corporate name." 831c(b). Courts read "sue sued" clause tort, exceptions. See, e.g., Peoples Nat. Bank Huntsville, Ala. Meredith, 812 682, 684-685 (CA11 1987); Queen Authority, 689 80, 85 (CA6 1982), cert. denied, 460 1082, 103 1770, 76 344 (1983). view, most plausible explanation view lower establishing own independent decided clarify 12 Seen light, supports either way Both history indicate give degree gives Compare Cong.Rec. 31054 (1988) (remarks Sen. Heflin). But conferred same, has bearing viewed protecting suitagainst FTCA.10 III 13 below, advance reasoning Circuit. They invoke well-established principle statutory avoided. Randall Loftsgaarden, 478 647, 661, 106 3143, 3152, 92 525 (1986) (" 'repeals implication favored' " (citations omitted)). contend precluding results 1089, regulates personnel. disagree. 14 series prior designed classes threat personal liability.11 1089(a).12 15 Appeals, including protects commit committing 652-654; Newman Soballe, 871 969 1989). reaching conclusion, courts largely 1089(f) Title 10, agency heads indemnify insure foreign-based employment.13 Eleventh construe indemnification insurance, them States.14 interpretation, directly court. extending "Gonzalez remedy." Brief 8, 33, 46. reject last step argument. purposes need court's determination immunize Even properly interpreted follow, however, application founded effects "repeal" liability; plaintiffs. What describe state- foreign-law foreclosed immunity. simply facts anything adds what namely doctors. rights, hand, did problem rights.15 B 17 next raise slightly different argument involving some fashion statute. 11, now benefit generous enacting 18 "any Government" 2679(b)(1) No elsewhere purports restrict phrases Government," urge, reach another When wanted expressly, actions authorizing 2679(b)(2); 6. drafting H.R.Rep. 100-700, (citing Act). much.16 C 19 argue falls Act—the permitting "brought [employee] authorized." 2679(b)(2)(B). assert they satisfied both conditions set forth exception. "authorized" doctors instances, claims constitute "violation." decide could deemed authorized find argument—that involves "a of" Act—is without merit. Nothing physicians. allegedly "violate" 20 dissent disagrees. dissent, unless 2679(b)(2)(B) "was remedy, purpose." Post, 183. However, never attempts square assertion 2679(b)(2)(B), authorized" point how physician's "violation" Nor can avoid obstacle invoking canon every given meaning. 183, 8. true fails disclose (and attempted discover) cause(s) but been them. impose physicians violated. 21 resists conclusion impressed "Congress' intent, expressed throughout hearings House Report, Act] curtail remedies victims." truth is, reveals considerably less solicitude plaintiffs' suggests. 9, Report warned [FTCA] exceptions"—which obviously include causes abroad—"also employee." 6, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5950 congressional intent implemented obliged effect. IV 22 reasons above, judgment remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 23 So ordered. 24 dissenting. 25 Department Defense (Department) dental families service Subsection (f) health serving overseas event malpractice.1 Regulations issued subsection make real party interest action.2 regulations victims nominal, assets. 26 patients involved performance services American dependents assigned duty countries. construes today says about situation; yet, today's render virtually meaningless. There result. contrary, there strong history, 5(b)(2)(B) statute, remedies. clarified examining separately chronological order. 27 principal succinctly stated preamble. "[t]o part armed forces, Department, Intelligence Agency, National Aeronautics Space Administration, purposes." 90 Stat.1985. 29 To achieve purpose, followed precedent four previous amendments (FTCA), none curtailed remedies.3 30 countries, insured indemnified 1, supra. arrangement, performed course duties, preserved common-law malpractice. 31 disagree ante, 170-171, Appeals' respondent's viable 1988. 172. withdrew 32 direct (1988). resolved conduct officials discretionary nature, well being before absolutely immune state-law 295, S.Ct., unanimously nondiscretionary entitled 297, 584. 33 risk thought particularly concerned level rank file "who least likely exercise discretion carrying duties," affected decision. 5946. 34 contains detailed statement statute.4 summarized follows: "It providing States." 102 Stat. 4564, note following 2671 35 Notably, statement, employees.5 36 recurring themes bill gave rise theme legislation existing employees,6 substituting tortfeasor responsible party—a normally longer worry she able collect judgment. supported unions representing 37 Members articulated hearings, reinforced amending original 5(b)(2), amended, 5(b)(2) provides: 38 "(2) Paragraph extend Government— 39 "(A) Constitution 40 "(B) 41 5(b)(2)(A), made explicit exclude violations coverage.7 endorsed view: important emphasize [Liability injury ordinary tortious conduct. conduct, mean just "common" states, codified permit negligence, as, example, wrongful death term include, allege commonly known cases. Persons will, Act], free pursue choose." Hearings 78. 42 explained issue controversial one, limited torts. 79. stressed encompassed legislation, thus, address issue. id., 40, 195. During violation. 42, 127, 173. concern, apparently added 5(b)(2)(A) assumed along: chose do so. 43 5(b)(2)(B), specific inclusion, concern Just ensure included similarly, preexisting well. add amendment, needed are, part, realm similarly Nevertheless, victims. Unless purpose—a intended. 44 reading superfluous.8 Indeed, kind protect, guidance. turning into surplusage, construed accomplish repeatedly identified unequivocally bill. explains: "Under H.R. 4612, previously right initiate lawsuit will lose right." 5951.9 45 description section-by-section cause countries specifically section "would clear 5952 46 argues impliedly repealed plaintiffs." Ante, strictly accurate regulation, have.10 amounted preservation 5(b)(2)(B)of meaningless,11 I believe Otherwise, justification doing so, silently 47 holding, closed door abroad.12 achieved indemnity regulation. significant deprive class judicial Respondents, like them, pursuing theirpre- negligent doctor though am persuaded prevents meaningless appendage allows fulfill claims.13 48 "Congress best position guidance complex often highly empirical inquiry warranted context" suggested "[l]egislated standards governing useful." 300, 585. Today, deciding handiwork nullity, once again invites "provide guidance." 49 respectfully dissent. California law, Italian "general principles law." Complaint ¶ 19. dismissal, cited failure time 2401(b). 17a-18a. "The loss property, resulting act omission reason matter estate Any relating employee's regard occurred." Pursuant 8(b), pending date enactment. 4565-4566, 2679. dispute case. (the employee) incident arose." 2679(d)(1). Once certification occurs, [under defendant." Ibid. Where refuses certification, 2679(d)(3). Following (1989), reliance affirming ruling. appearing pro se, requested applicability 3. rationale stateside left 651-654. petition portion denied event, rendered irrelevant First, Fifth Tenth Nasuti Scannell, 906 802, 810, (CA1 1990); Mitchell Carlson, 896 128 (CA5 Aviles Lutz, 887 1046 (CA10 taken opposite position. 971. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388, 91 1999, (1971). fully construction. particular, Committee 'exclusive remedy' permissible acted Therefore, defense actual 2680 28, U.S.C.[,] estate." pp. 5945, "internally inconsistent," 656, stating "[u]nder right," H.R.Rep., 5951. understood passage suggest intend narrow conjunction preceding sentence "contains unfairly Act's] procedural ramifications" "an enacted, yet ., claimant context, lawsuits permitted continue prosecute substantive note, moreover, parallel 831c-2(a)(2). Likewise, 831c-2(b)(4) (indicating to" generally). passed Henderson Bluemink, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 511 399 (1974), S.Rep. 94-1264, (1976), 1976, 4443. Similar pre-immunity employed State 2702, Veterans' 4116, Public Health Service, 233. Another attorneys legal 1054. superseding Drivers 2679(b)-(e) (1982 ed.), operating motor vehicle 1089(a) injury, death, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, paramedical supporting forces hereafter (or person) proceeding." head may, extent considers appropriate, harmless insurance described person's medical, dental, related (including clinical studies investigations) ." Jackson Kelly, 557 735, 740-741 1977) (endorsing dictum). cf. Powers Schultz, 821 295 1987) (reasoning 1089(f)'s indemnify-or-insure court). contends "virtually meaningless" insure-or-indemnify physician. 176-177. true. wake domestic needed, still serves courts. 297. echoes all-encompassing statute: employment." Medical Malpractice Immunity "(f) designee deems country department, agency, instrumentality circumstances 1346(b) title damage injury." 1986(f), 1089(f). arrangement members Administration. Stat.1989, 2458a(f). Navy Department's regulations: "6. Extent Protection. Reference extends coverage possessions party. (as, acts giving States), allowing Secretary "7. Exercise Authority. reference (a), delegated authority All referred paragraph above hereby omissions country, (b)." Navy, SECNAV INSTRUCTION 6300.3, JAG:14C (Mar. 14, 1978), 2a-3a. Senate explained: "By forced capacity. order "In 1961 Driver's (Public Law 87-258) operation driver capacity vehicles. 1965, patterned after Administration 89-311). "Similar 1970 Service 91-623). "More recently, Foreign Relations Authorization fiscal year 1977 94-350) essential respects similar. Each abolished old obtain object capacities. "H.R. 3954 modeled statutes." 4445. Pub.L. 100-694, 4563, findings Act: through historically responsibility employer "(4) Recent decisions, Supreme seriously eroded "(5) erosion immediate crisis prospect protracted litigation entire workforce. "(7) indicated determine personally consideration 4563-4564, 2671. Senator Grassley, sponsors "As my colleagues know, generally worked past decades fair expeditious compensation bill, covering Westfall-type assures fairly compensated. measure "Mr. President, so-called Constitutional claims. Although too area me—and introduced corrective past—the pass impact cases, officials." 29933 representative testified: 4358 enjoyed doctors, drivers, DoD equitable treatment status Subcommittee Administrative Governmental Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., (hereinafter Hearings). reiterated others debate. ("In way, all, infringe diminish individuals") (statement Rep. Wolf); ("[W]e want diminishing anyone might injured") Chairman Frank); 15963 ("Other acts, Civil Rights all") Frank). 58, approach runs counter meaning attributed each Morton, 467 822, 828, 104 2769, 2773, 81 680 (1984); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory 46.06, (rev. 4th ed. 1984 ("A provisions, inoperative superfluous, void insignificant") (footnotes omitted). explain Report's away claiming appears pertaining implementation 167-168, similar discussion happen transition period. "does change Courts, availability action; expand established Such it, ignored: "Because written meaning." 969, 974 (1989). acknowledged, albeit dicta, remedy: [subsection ] method assumption Behind desire ever-present danger compensating injuries. Instead practicing elected insurance. 1977). theoretical possibility court, 172, 15, mentioned remains private Office Personnel Management Richmond, 414, 2465, 387 (1990). Ironically, restrictive reading, leaves workers little choice bills receive compensation; very policy years ago. FTCA's enactment, rectify shortcomings system "unduly burdensome Congress" "unjust claimants" "accord parties base[d] award considerations grace." 1287, 79th 1st (1945). "establish uniform system" replace bills. restated 1189. pure grammar, course, correct. nevertheless literal answer critical questions: depriving victims, petitioner, remedy? If purpose? choose used imperfect grammar benign inadvertently heartless disclaimed difficulty choosing former.

Category: 7