Opinion ID: 508926
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Discretionary Function Exception to This Case

Text: 35 Plaintiffs argue that Dr. Hernandez's decision was based only upon scientific considerations, and therefore that it does not fall within the discretionary function exception. Brief for Appellants at 14-20; Reply Brief at 13-19. Both sides point to congressional hearings (Hearings) transcripts to support their arguments. 4 On this issue we find that Dr. Hernandez's decision to order further study was based on economic, social and political policy considerations, and not solely on scientific considerations as plaintiffs claim. The discretionary function exception precludes liability in this case because Dr. Hernandez was exercising permissible discretion based on policy considerations in deciding to order further study. In Berkovitz v. United States, supra, it was held that the government was not insulated from suit by the discretionary function exception. The Court explained that since plaintiff's claim alleged that the government violated mandatory directives, the government had no discretion, and therefore the discretionary exception could not apply. The unanimous opinion emphasized that the exception protects only governmental actions and decisions based on considerations of public policy. Berkovitz, --- U.S. at ----, 108 S.Ct. at 1959. Berkovitz distinguished cases, such as the present one, in which the policies and programs formulated by the [government] allow room for implementing officials to make independent policy judgments.... Id. at ---- - ----, 108 S.Ct. at 1964. In cases which involve policy judgment and discretion, such as this one, the discretionary function exception protects the acts taken by those officials in the exercise of this discretion. Id. at ----, 108 S.Ct. at 1964. 36 In the agency Hearings here there are two examples of economic considerations that Dr. Hernandez took into account in making his decision. See Hearings at 62 (J.A. 105) (Dr. Hernandez quoted as saying that EPA was proposing approaches to the lead contamination issue that will be within the context of practicality of our budgetary restraints.); Hearings at 320 (J.A. 132) (Frances Phillips, EPA Deputy Regional Administrator, states that Dr. Hernandez told her that he did not think we should spend any money to remove dirt or have any bulldozers start up until we could identify a specific health problem relative to this case.). 37 The following statements in the Hearings support the conclusion that Dr. Hernandez also took social and political factors into account in reaching his decision. See Hearings at 66 (J.A. at 109) (Dr. Hernandez explains: Supposing that we had, the first day that report turned up, said 'Let's go and take that playground and clean that place up, and they do this, and say Done and get a settlement out of it,' and then we would have been charged with a 'sweetheart' deal with somebody, done in the dark of night, before we had done any kind of further study, when in fact, we found that this study showed problems further out.); Hearings at 67 (J.A. 110) (Dr. Hernandez states that moving ahead without some kind of information as to the nature of the source, the mode of travel, the kinds of control techniques that might otherwise be used, would leave us open to the same kinds of criticisms, 'Why did you do that?' ); Hearings at 317 (J.A. 129) (Mrs. Phillips states that Dr. Hernandez was concerned about the precedent that cleaning up at an action level of over a 1,000 parts per million would set, not only in the Dallas area, but relative to all the urban areas and lead smelter areas across the country.); Hearings at 335 (J.A. 147) (Mrs. Phillips and Dr. Hernandez discussed, among other factors, a primary concern for the children and the effect this had on other Federal court cases in the region ... and how this could affect our negotiations.). 5 II. CONCLUSION 38 Even though plaintiffs need only adduce a set of facts, Brief for Appellants at 1, supporting their legal claims in order to survive a motion to dismiss, Gregg v. Barrett, 771 F.2d 539, 547 (D.C.Cir.1985), the government must prevail in this case. Since Dr. Hernandez's decision ordering further study involved social, economic and political policy considerations, Berkovitz, --- U.S. ----, ----, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 1960, quoting Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. at 814, 104 S.Ct. at 2765, it is protected by the discretionary function exception. Therefore the government is immune from suit. 6 39 We affirm the dismissal of the complaint because even assuming that all of its factual allegations are true, plaintiffs have failed to establish a right to relief. We are therefore without jurisdiction. 40 Judgment accordingly.