Dorothy L. Buckingham, in Her Own Right & as Adm'x of the Est. of Elvin E. Buckingham, Deceased v. United States, 394 F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Dorothy L. Buckingham, in Her Own Right & as Adm'x of the Est. of Elvin E. Buckingham, Deceased v. United States, 394 F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re \Agent Orange\" Product Liability Litigation" (nyed, 1980-12-29)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 38 U.S.C. § 401 cited 1× in this case · 9 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re \Agent Orange\" Product Liability Litigation"
E.D.N.Y · 1980 · confidence medium
See also Jaffee v. United States, 592 F.2d 712, 717 (CA3 1979), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 961 , 99 S.Ct. 2406 , 60 L.Ed.2d 1066 (1979); Dilworth v. United States, 387 F.2d 590, 591 (CA3 1967); Buckingham v. United States, 394 F.2d 483, 484 (CA4 1968). 8 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." John G. Shaw, Administrator of the Estate of Phillip G. Steele, Deceased v. United States
4th Cir. · 1971 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Buckingham v. United States, 394 F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1968).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dorothy L. BUCKINGHAM, in Her Own Right and as Administratrix of the Estate of Elvin E. Buckingham, Deceased, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
12073.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Apr 29, 1968.
394 F.2d 483
Israel Steingold, Norfolk, Va. (Steingold, Steingold & Chovitz, Norfolk, Va., and Charles Henry Gordon, Hampton, Va., on the brief), for appellant., Leonard Schaitman, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Morton Hollander, Atty., Dept. of Justice, and C. Vernon Spratley, Jr., U. S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.
Haynsworth, Boreman, Butzner.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In this case plaintiff has brought suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. [1] The District

Court granted summary judgment for defendant. Finding this case to be controlled by Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152, we affirm the judgment- below.

Plaintiff’s decedent, a Master Sergeant in the United States Air Force stationed at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, became ill while on duty on August 5, 1966. On August 6 he reported to the emergency room of the base hospital where he was treated, given a prescription, and sent home. His condition having worsened, he returned to the hospital on August 7, was given further directions for treatment, and again sent home. He finally gained admission to the hospital on August 9 but died the next day.

Plaintiff alleges that the failure to admit the sergeant earlier constituted negligence on the part of the hospital personnel, and for purposes of this appeal the allegation is accepted as true. Thus, the issue becomes whether or not the negligent failure of a military hospital to admit a soldier on active duty is actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Feres v. United States, supra, requires a negative reply.

Of the three eases decided sub nom. Feres v. United States, two were concerned with alleged medical malpractice at army hospitals. As in the case at bar, the victims of the alleged malpractice were soldiers on active duty. After considering the unique relationship of military personnel to their government and the fact that Congress had provided a uniform system of compensation for the injury or death of those in the armed forces, [2] the Court determined that the injuries in question were not actionable under the Tort Claims Act. We perceive no meaningful distinction between the claims there asserted and the instant claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment below.

There is no merit to the contention that the Feres doctrine is bankrupt and that the case should be confined narrowly to the precise factual situation there presented. Courts confronted with situations not meaningfully distinguishable from Feres or from the one presently before us have attested to its continued viability. [3]

Affirmed.

1

. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq.

2

. In the case at bar plaintiff is entitled to and is presently receiving $187 per. month under 38 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

3

. See, e. g., Norris v. United States, 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 439, aff’g 137 F.Supp. 11 (E.D.N.Y.); Sheppard v. United States, 3 Cir., 369 F.2d 272.