2. The Supreme Court Rules Against An Overseas
American: Mr. Marcus Smith, a U.S. Army
Sergeant stationed in Italy, claimed that Dr. William Marshall, who was
serving on the medical staff of the U.S. Army Hospital in Vicenza, Italy,
was negligent during the birth of his son, Dominique in 1982. This child
was born with massive brain damage. The suit was brought in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California in 1987.
The Government intervened, in a suit entitled United
States, Et Al., Petitioners V. Marcus S. Smith Et Al, and sought
to have itself substituted for Dr. Marshall as the defendant under the
relevant provisions of the Gonzalez Act, 10 U.S.C. Þ1089. This Act
provides that in suits against military medical personnel for torts committed
within the scope of their employment, the Government is to be substituted
as the defendant and the suit is to proceed against the Government under
the FTCA. The Catch 22 here is that once the FTCA is invoked, the prohibition
of claims for injuries committed outside the country becomes operative.
Mr. Marcus, the FTCA language not withstanding, tried
nevertheless to seek damages from the particular Government employee who
caused the injury. The Court by an 8-1 majority held "that the Liability
Reform Act bars this alternative mode of recovery."
3. But There was Dissent:
Justice Stevens, in dissent, said that the majority ruling is not consistent
with the intent of Congress. According to Mr. Stevens, "For claims not
covered by the FTCA, such as for those claims arising in foreign countries,
the Gonzales Act authorized medical personnel to be insured or indemnified
by the Federal Government. By that arrangement, Congress protected Government
doctors from personal liability for services performed in the course of
their overseas duties, and at the same time, preserved the common law remedy
for American victims of medical malpractice."
Mr. Stevens concludes that "the question is whether
the Liability Reform Act withdrew the remedy for malpractice claims arising
outside of the United States that had been expressly preserved by subsection
(f) of the Gonzalez Act.
4. The Situation Today:
The net result of this Supreme Court ruling is that U.S. citizens living
overseas can no longer expect to win any tort suits against the U.S. Government
for negligent acts committed overseas by doctors or other Government employees.
5. What Could and Should be Done?:
ACA requests that legislation be introduced by Members of this Subcommittee
that would amend the Liability Reform Act of 1988 in such a way as to permit
U.S. citizens living abroad to regain the common law right to seek redress
for torts committed overseas by individuals working for the U.S. Government
overseas.
ACA
Geneva, Switzerland
31 January 2001