C.F.R.
»
Title 28
» CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 15—CERTIFICATIONS, DECERTIFICATIONS, AND NON-DEEMING DETERMINATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT › Subpart A—Certification and Decertification in Connection With Certain Suits Based Upon Acts or Omissions of Federal Employees and Other Persons
(a) This part contains the regulations of the Department of Justice governing the application for and the issuance of statutory certifications and decertifications in connection with certain suits based upon the acts or omissions of Federal employees and certain other persons as to whom the remedy provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) and 2672, is made exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against such Federal employees and other persons.
(b) As used in this part:
(1) Appropriate Federal agency means the Federal agency most closely associated with the program out of which the claim or suit arose. When it cannot be ascertained which Federal agency is the most closely associated with the program out of which the claim or suit arose, the responsible Director of the Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, shall be consulted and will thereafter designate the appropriate Federal agency.
(2) Federal employee means “employee of the United States” as that term is defined by 28 U.S.C. 2671.
(3) Covered person means any person other than a Federal employee or the estate of a Federal employee as to whom Congress has provided by statute that the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) and 2672 is made exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding for money damages by reason of the same subject matter against such person.
[Order No. 2697-2003, 68 FR 74188, Dec. 23, 2003. Redesignated by Order No. 5968-2024, 89 FR 55517, July 5, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Helen D. Kelley & John E. Kelley v. United States of Am., Ruth Semko, 568 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1978).
· cites it 4× “§ 2679 (c) and 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 require, and, in consequence, none of the papers in the lawsuit was sent to the United States Attorney, the Attorney General, or the head of Hunt’s employing agency, as Section 2679(c) and Section 15.”
David M. Wollman v. Jake Gross, Jr., 637 F.2d 544 (8th Cir. 1980).
· cites it 2× “§ 2679 (c) and 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 require. Gross’ insurer retained counsel to defend the original state court suit, and although the first answer denied the main allegations of the complaint there was no reference to federal employment nor recourse to the defense afforded by…”
David M. Wollman v. Jake Gross, Jr., 646 F.2d 1306 (8th Cir. 1981).
· cites it 4× “Wollman was literally lulled into a sense of false security by Gross and his insurer who negotiated his claim with him, perhaps in good faith, for over two years. Gross and his insurer, not Wollman, were the ones who slept on their rights.”
Bansal v. Russ, 513 F. Supp. 2d 264 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
“§ 2679 (d)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 ; 28 C.F.R. § 15.3 (delegating certification authority to the United States Attorneys.”
Van Lieu v. United States, 542 F. Supp. 862 (N.D.N.Y. 1982).
· cites it 2× “§ 2679 (c) and 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 . Wollman did not learn of the Government’s interest in his suit until Gross filed an amended answer on February 21, 1979, asserting his status as a Government employee.”
Joseph E.L. Sullivan v. United States, 21 F.3d 198 (7th Cir. 1994).
“” See 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 (suits relating to injuries caused by operation of a motor vehicle, by the provision of medical care, treatment, or investigation, by the administration of the swine flu vaccine, and by exposure to radiation).”
Tassin v. Neneman, 766 F. Supp. 974 (D. Kan. 1991).
“…apparently means that the employee must "promptly” deliver the process, and "immediately" notify his superiors. See 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 .”
McLaurin v. United States (5th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “McLaurin correctly notes that 28 C.F.R. § 15.1 requires the employee to deliver the suit papers promptly to his supervisor.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.