The changing landscape of military medical malpractice: from the Feres Doctrine to present

Abstract

Medical malpractice suits within the military have historically been limited by the Feres Doctrine, a legal precedent arising from a Supreme Court decision in 1950, which stated that active-duty personnel cannot bring suit for malpractice against either the United States government or military healthcare providers. This precedent has increasingly become a focus of discussion and reform as multiple cases claiming malpractice have been dismissed. Recently, however, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2020 initiated the first change to this precedent by creating an administrative body with the sole purpose of evaluating and settling claims of medical malpractice within the military’s $50 billion healthcare system. This article seeks to present the legal history related to military malpractice and the Feres Doctrine as well as discuss the potential future implications that may arise as the Feres Doctrine is modified for the first time in 70 years.

Optimizing combat readiness for military surgeons without trauma fellowship training: Engaging the “voluntary faculty” model

“…The federal government is a sovereign entity and thus immune to litigation. Military surgeons are Department of Defense (DOD) health care providers and, therefore, as agents of a sovereign government, protected from individual litigation 14 . The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1940 breaks the immunity of the government and allows certain lawsuits, including civilians charging malpractice by a federal employee, to be brought against the government 15 .…”

“…The Federal Tort Claims Act of 1940 breaks the immunity of the government and allows certain lawsuits, including civilians charging malpractice by a federal employee, to be brought against the government 15 . Critically, when a malpractice claim is brought against a military physician liability shifts from the physician to the federal government 14 . The Federal Tort Claims Act grants the government the authority to adjudicate any claims brought against it through a structured settlement process 16 .…”

Commentary: Standard of Care During a Crisis: What Should a Surgeon Know (and Do)?

“…Tort reform explicitly addressing liability during crisis conditions and allowing surgeons and physicians a measure of protection under good Samaritan provisions for actions undertaken in support of public health initiatives. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29] 7. Surgeons caring for individual patients must not be directed to abandon them for the good of the collective.…”

“…Tort reform explicitly addressing liability during crisis conditions and allowing surgeons and physicians a measure of protection under good Samaritan provisions for actions undertaken in support of public health initiatives. 23-29…”

“…Surgeons and physicians complying with published and accepted triage policies must be shielded from liability arising from such policies.Surgeons complying with public rules must be explicitly shielded when those rules result in harm to patients.Responsible, scientifically based debate must be protected.Surgeons overriding public triage rules for the benefit of individual patients who, in the opinion of the surgeon, reasonably require immediate care must also be protected.Tort reform explicitly addressing liability during crisis conditions and allowing surgeons and physicians a measure of protection under good Samaritan provisions for actions undertaken in support of public health initiatives. 23-29 Surgeons caring for individual patients must not be directed to abandon them for the good of the collective.Similar provisions must be put in place for hospitals. For example, hospitals functioning at capacity must not be subject to public tort actions for refusing or transferring patients who would otherwise be protected.…”