32 C.F.R. § 45.5

Elements of payable claim: facilities and providers

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general. This section describes some of the necessary elements of a payable claim. The health care involved must occur in a covered military medical treatment facility (MTF) and be provided by a DoD health care provider acting within the scope of employment.

(b) Covered MTF. (1) As provided in section 2733a(b)(3) and (i)(1), the alleged act or omission constituting medical malpractice must have occurred in a covered MTF. For the purposes of this regulation, an MTF is a medical center, inpatient hospital, or ambulatory care center, as those facilities are described in 10 U.S.C. 1073d. Fixed dental clinics are also included.

(2) A claim may not be based on health care services provided by DoD health care providers in any other location, such as in the field, battalion aid stations, ships, planes, deployed settings, or in any other place that is not a covered MTF.

(c) DoD health care provider. As provided in section 2733a(i)(2), a DoD health care provider is a member of the uniformed services, DoD civilian employee, or personal services contractor of the Department (under 10 U.S.C. 1091) authorized by DoD to provide health care services. A non-personal services contractor or a volunteer working in an MTF is not a DoD health care provider for purposes of a payable claim under this part.

(d) Scope of employment. As provided in section 2733a(b)(2), for a claim to be payable under this part, the DoD health care provider whose negligent or wrongful act or omission is the basis of a claim must be acting within the scope of employment, meaning that the provider was acting in furtherance of his or her duties in the MTF. For personal services contractors, “scope of employment” means the contractor was acting within the scope of his or her duties.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2025–2026 · leading case: Luckey v. Hegseth (D.D.C. 2026).
Luckey v. Hegseth (D.D.C. 2026). · cites it 4× “¶¶ 67–68; see 32 C.F.R. § 45.5 (b). It also stated that the claim had been filed outside the three-year statute of limitations in the agency’s regulation.”
Rourke v. USAF (D. Mass. 2025). “On November 16, 2021, the USAF denied Plaintiff’s claim, reasoning that the “claim is not cognizable under the [MMMA] because the events [Plaintiff] describe[d] while a trainee at the SERE school do not allege personal injury arising from medical malpractice by a DoD healthcare…”
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.