Court Opinion

ID: 9949422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 17:01:19.678635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:50.595781
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1703     Doc: 41         Filed: 03/07/2024    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1703

        RYAN G. CARTER; KATHLEEN E. COLE,

                            Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                     v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cv-01315-ELH)

        Argued: January 25, 2024                                       Decided: March 7, 2024

        Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ARGUED: Christopher Thomas Casciano, BROWN & BARRON, LLC, Baltimore,
        Maryland, for Appellants.      Lowell Vernon Sturgill, Jr., UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Brian S.
        Brown, Kristin R. Hosseinzadeh, Alexis I. Gbemudu, BROWN & BARRON, LLC,
        Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
        Attorney General, Mark Stern, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Erek Barron, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1703      Doc: 41         Filed: 03/07/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1703      Doc: 41          Filed: 03/07/2024        Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Ryan G. Carter, a reservist in the Air National Guard and dual-status technician for

        the military, and his wife, Kathleen E. Cole, appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing

        their Federal Tort Claims Act action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Feres v.

        United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), having found the injuries arose out of or were in a

        course of activity “incident to service.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

        we review dismissals under Feres de novo. Clendening v. United States, 19 F.4th 421, 426

        (4th Cir. 2021). We affirm the district court’s dismissal.

               The district court properly dismissed the claims of alleged medical malpractice, lack

        of informed consent and loss of consortium all stemming from surgery that took place at

        Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Carter received the surgery at Walter

        Reed—performed by military doctors—because he was a member of the military. And

        although he was on inactive status as an Air National Guardsman at the time of the surgery,

        he was neither discharged from the military nor on leave substantially similar to discharged

        or veteran status. Under our precedent, that is enough to bar the couple’s claims under

        Feres. ∗ See Appelhans v. United States, 877 F.2d 309, 311 (4th Cir. 1989) (finding Feres

        applicable to servicemember on excess leave pending discharge because “his injury

        occurred as a result of medical treatment by military doctors . . . conclusively

        demonstrat[ing] that that injury was ‘incident to service’”); see also Clendening, 19 F.4th

               ∗
                A derivative loss of consortium claim is similarly barred by Feres under our
        precedent. See Kendrick v. United States, 877 F.2d 1201, 1206–07 (4th Cir. 1989).

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1703      Doc: 41         Filed: 03/07/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

        at 428 (noting the current breadth of the doctrine in the circuit, “encompass[ing], at a

        minimum, all injuries suffered by military personnel that are even remotely related to the

        individual's status as a member of the military” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we

                                                                                         AFFIRM.

                                                    4