10 U.S.C. § 1089
Defense of certain suits arising out of medical malpractice
2013—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–239 substituted “to such a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical” for “if the physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical”, struck out “involved is” before “serving under”, and inserted “or a subcontract at any tier under such a contract that is authorized in accordance with the requirements of such section 1091” after “section 1091 of this title”.
2011—Subsec. (g)(3). Pub. L. 112–81 substituted “Chief Operating Officer of the Armed Forces Retirement Home” for “Armed Forces Retirement Home Board”.
2008—Subsec. (g)(1). Pub. L. 110–181 substituted “Director of the Central Intelligence Agency” for “Director of Central Intelligence”.
2002—Subsec. (g)(2). Pub. L. 107–296 substituted “of Homeland Security” for “of Transportation”.
1997—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–85, § 736(b)(1), inserted at end “This subsection shall also apply if the physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical or other supporting personnel (or the estate of such person) involved is serving under a personal services contract entered into under section 1091 of this title.”
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 105–85, § 736(b)(2), designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).
1990—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 101–510, § 1533(a)(1)(A), substituted “Armed Forces Retirement Home” for “United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home”.
Subsec. (g)(3). Pub. L. 101–510, § 1533(a)(1)(B), added par. (3) and struck out former par. (3) which read as follows: “the Board of Commissioners of the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s home, in the case of an employee of the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home; and”.
1987—Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 100–180 inserted “the term” after “In this section,”.
1983—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–94, § 934(a), inserted “the United States Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home,”.
Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 98–94, § 934(b), substituted “may, to the extent that the head of the agency concerned considers” for “or his designee may, to the extent that he or his designee deems”.
Subsec. (g)(3), (4). Pub. L. 98–94, § 934(c)(3), added par. (3) and redesignated former par. (3) as (4).
1981—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–124 inserted “the National Guard while engaged in training or duty under section 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32,” after “armed forces,”.
Amendment by Pub. L. 107–296 effective on the date of transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security, see section 1704(g) of Pub. L. 107–296, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
Amendment by Pub. L. 101–510 effective one year after
Pub. L. 98–94, title IX, § 934(d),
Pub. L. 97–124, § 4,
Pub. L. 94–464, § 4,
Pub. L. 94–464, § 2(a),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 109
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1977–2024 · leading case: Levin v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013).
Levin v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013). “Levin relied on the Gonzalez Act, 10 U. S. C. § 1089 , which makes the remedy against the United States under the FTCA preclusive of any suit against Armed Forces medical personnel, § 1089(a).”
United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991). “Marshall as the defendant pursuant to the Gonzalez Act, 10 U. S. C. § 1089 . The Gonzalez 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…”
Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011). “The United States sought to substitute itself as the defendant pursuant to the Gonzalez Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , which “provide[d] that in suits against military medical personnel for torts committed within the scope of their employment, the Government is to be substituted as the…”
Mildred M. Newman, & Melvin D. Newman v. Peter Soballe, M.D., 871 F.2d 969 (11th Cir. 1989). “Soballe, then filed a petition for removal to federal court pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (c). 1 *970 The government also moved to substitute the United States, in the place of Dr.”
Anderson v. O'DONOGHUE, 677 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1983). “The removal petition cited 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (a). Under this statute it is alleged the plaintiffs exclusive remedy is under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.”
Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980). “§ 2458a, 10 U. S. C. § 1089 (a), and 22 U. S. C. § 817 (a) (malpractice by certain Government health personnel); 28 U.”
Sheila M. Jackson v. Paul A. Kelly, 557 F.2d 735 (10th Cir. 1977). “10 U.S.C. § 1089 (f). 5 This statute was not made retroactive, however, and therefore has no applicability to this case.”
Brignac v. United States, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1367 (N.D. Ga. 2017). “To get around the intentional tort exception of the FTCA, the plaintiff relied on 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (e), which states that the exception “shall not apply to any cause of action arising out of a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical, dental, or…”
Barry Doe v. David Meron, 929 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2019). “10 U.S.C. § 1089 (a). It does this by allowing the United States to substitute itself as a defendant upon certification by the Attorney General that the medical employee was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident out of which the suit arose.”
Levin v. United States, 663 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2011). “The United States invoked the Gonzalez Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , immunizing individual military medical personnel from malpractice liability.”
Walter Lojuk v. Marjorie Quandt, Dir. of the Vets. Admin. Hosp., 706 F.2d 1456 (7th Cir. 1983). “§ 2458a(e) (NASA); 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (e) (Armed Forces). Section 4116 in contrast contains no such reference to Section 2680(h).”
Castaneda Ex Rel. Est. of Castaneda v. United States, 546 F.3d 682 (9th Cir. 2008). “” 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (a) (Department of Defense, Armed Forces Retirement Home, and Central Intelligence Agency medical personnel); 42 U.”
Jean H. Pelphrey v. United States, 674 F.2d 243 (4th Cir. 1982). “and 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , for damages arising from a radical mastectomy performed at the Navy Regional Medical Center in the Philippines.”
Marcus S. Smith Hildegard U. Smith v. William Marshall, Jr., M.D., 885 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1989). “The case presents two questions never addressed by this circuit: (1) whether an American military physician working in a foreign country is immune from a malpractice suit under 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (1982) 1 and (2) whether the physician is immune from suit under the recently enacted…”
Ralph E. Baker v. Frank A. Barber, M.D., & James B. Talmage, M.D., 673 F.2d 147 (6th Cir. 1982). “§§ 8101-93 , is barred by the federal medical malpractice immunity statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , from recovery against the military physicians.”
Afonso v. City of Boston, 587 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1984). “These motions were made pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (a). The United States simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that plaintiffs had not given the government notice of a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (F.”
Karen Keir & Mary Keir, Individually, & as Next Friend & Mother of Karen Keir v. United States, 853 F.2d 398 (6th Cir. 1988). “However, the district court failed to recognize that 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (e) qualifies this provision in malpractice actions against military doctors.”
Debra Powers v. Herbert W. Schultz, M.D., 821 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1987). “Schultz, removed the suit to federal court pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (c) 1 The *296 government then moved the district court to substitute the United States, in the place of Dr.”
William Knowles & Jane Knowles, on Behalf of Themselves & as Guardians of Their Minor Son, Kris Knowles v. United States, 91 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 1996). “§ 2679 (b)(1), (d)(2), and the Gonzalez Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 . He reasons that, because medical services specialists are immune from suit under these acts, liability for the United States attaches only by way of the Hospital.”
Mrs. Verdie Mae Franklin Verdie Mae Franklin, Adm'x of the Est. of Lonnie B. Franklin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1492 (10th Cir. 1993). “Prior to passage of the Liability Reform Act, however, various individually-targeted immunity statutes served to shield particular groups of government, employees from personal tort liability in the same manner, for example, 10 U.”
Lojuk v. Johnson, 770 F.2d 619 (7th Cir. 1985). “1977) (en banc) (interpreting 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (f), immunizing military medical employees, parallel statute to Section 4116(e)).”
Palmer v. Flaggman, 93 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 1996). “10 U.S.C. § 1089 is a portion of the Gonzalez Act, which provides immunity to military medical personnel.”
John G. Robb v. United States, 80 F.3d 884 (4th Cir. 1996). “and any support personnel] not covered by 10 U.S.C. § 1089 .” 10 Id. at 33 (MOU ¶ B(2)(b)).”
Burchfield v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, 516 F. Supp. 1301 (D. Colo. 1981). “The government also asserts that 10 U.S.C. § 1089 immunizes United States military medical personnel for acts which constitute medical malpractice.”
Hall v. United States, 528 F. Supp. 963 (D.N.J. 1981). “10 U.S.C. § 1089 (1976). (The Gonzalez Bill.”
Joy Ward, Individually & as Guardian Ad Litem of Jacob R. Kinser v. Richard Gordon, M.D. United States of Am., 999 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1993). “Gonzalez Act The Gonzalez Act, or Medical Malpractice Immunity Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (1988), is one of a series of immunity statutes enacted prior to the Liability Reform Act.”
Andrews v. United States, 548 F. Supp. 603 (D.S.C. 1982). “, and 10 U.S.C. § 1089 . This action has been brought by the plaintiffs as one sounding in negligence on the part of agents of the United States arising out of medical treatment given to the plaintiff, Sandra B.”
Kelley v. Rossi, 481 N.E.2d 1340 (Mass. 1985). “§ 4116 (a) (1982); 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (1982) (military doctors); Quilico v.”
In Re Consol. United States Atmospheric Testing Litig., Christina Konizeski v. Livermore Labs, Alice P. Broudy v. United States, 820 F.2d 982 (9th Cir. 1987). “§ 817 (a) (State Department medical personnel); 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (a) (Armed Forces medical personnel).”
Robert WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy DRAKE; United States of Am., Defendants-Appellants, 87 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 1996). “The United States intervened and sought to have itself substituted as the defendant pursuant to the Gonzalez Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , which provides that in suits against military medical personnel for torts committed within the scope of their employment, the United States is to…”
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, 860 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “”); 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (f)(2) (recognizing that statute provides “the au- thority to provide for reasonable attorney’s fees”); 15 U.”
Mary Doe v. United States, 769 F.2d 174 (4th Cir. 1985). “§ 2680 (h) preserves immunity from suit on “[a]ny claim arising out of assault____” The court further held that § 2680(h) had not been superseded in this case by the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , because the officer’s conduct was not within the scope of…”
Brillant v. Royal, 582 So. 2d 512 (Ala. 1991). “The "Gonzales Act," codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , provides as follows: "The remedy against the United States provided in sections 1346(b) and 2672 of title 28 for damages for personal injury, including death, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any physician,…”
United States v. Rust, 38 M.J. 726 (1993). “” As logical support for this assertion he cites the protection against civil suit afforded military physicians by 10 U.S.C. § 1089 . In addition, he cites an unwritten “custom” against criminal prosecution in the Air Force and the resulting lack of constitutionally-required…”
Jordan v. United States, 740 F. Supp. 810 (W.D. Okla. 1990). “Plaintiffs in turn argue that they are not proceeding under the FTCA, but *813 under the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 . As a result, their assault and battery claim falls within section 1089’s language which seemingly operates to make inapplicable the…”
Castaneda v. United States, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1279 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “10 U.S.C. § 1089 (a). Both § 1089(a) and § 233(a) address claims for “damage for personal injury, including death” which result from certain federal officials involved in the “performance of medical, dental, or related health functions.”
Howell v. United States, 489 F. Supp. 147 (W.D. Tenn. 1980). “§§ 2401 (b) and 2675(a); and that relief against the individual military doctors is barred by 10 U.S.C. § 1089 . Plaintiff has opposed the motion, apparently conceding defendants’ point as to Feres but arguing that 10 U.”
Joyce Atkinson v. United States, 825 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1987). “See 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (1982 & Supp. Ill 1985).”
Bass v. Parsons, 577 F. Supp. 944 (S.D.W. Va 1984). “5 Plaintiff reasons that to hold military doctors immune from malpractice suits would render the malpractice liability insurance provisions of Section 1089(f) superfluous. The Court finds Plaintiff’s reasoning without merit.”
Dr. Eileen T. MENDEZ, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Dr. Robert BELTON, Presbyterian Hosp., Et Al., Defendants, Appellees, 739 F.2d 15 (1st Cir. 1984). “§ 4116 (a), and the armed forces, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , meant to protect against.”
Sandra B. Andrews & Kenneth M. Andrews v. United States, 732 F.2d 366 (4th Cir. 1984).
Aldridge v. Hartford Hosp., 969 F. Supp. 816 (D. Conn. 1996).
Joanne Bembenista v. United States, 866 F.2d 493 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
Richard J. Davis v. Knud-Hansen Mem'l Hosp., Gov't of the Virgin Islands, & Curtis r.coulam, M.D., 635 F.2d 179 (3rd Cir. 1980).
Lewis v. United States, 83 F. Supp. 3d 198 (D.D.C. 2015).
Joseph E.L. Sullivan v. United States, 21 F.3d 198 (7th Cir. 1994).
Misko v. United States, 453 F. Supp. 513 (D.D.C. 1978).
Miller v. United States, 803 F. Supp. 1120 (E.D. Va. 1992).
Jones v. Newton, 775 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir. 1985).
Sparks v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 431 F. Supp. 411 (W.D. Okla. 1977).
Manas Y Pineiro v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A., 443 F. Supp. 418 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
Richard L. Hawe v. United States, 670 F.2d 652 (6th Cir. 1982).
Neely v. Blumenthal, 458 F. Supp. 945 (D.D.C. 1978).
In Re Consol. United States Atmospheric Testing Litig., 616 F. Supp. 759 (N.D. Cal. 1985).
Nagy v. United States, 471 F. Supp. 383 (D.D.C. 1979).
Bembenista v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 18 (D.D.C. 1988).
Heller v. United States, 776 F.2d 92 (3rd Cir. 1985).
Nicholas Nasuti v. James Scannell, 792 F.2d 264 (1st Cir. 1986).
Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 331 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 2003).
Mitchell v. Carlson, 896 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1990).
Doe v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 503 (D.S.C. 1984).
Perry v. United States, 936 F. Supp. 867 (S.D. Ala. 1996).
Lee v. Yee, 643 F. Supp. 593 (D. Haw. 1986).
Stanley v. United States, 574 F. Supp. 474 (S.D. Fla. 1983).
Doe v. United States, 618 F. Supp. 71 (D.S.C. 1985).
Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 266 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2001).
Green v. United States, 530 F. Supp. 633 (E.D. Wis. 1982).
Andrews v. Gee, 599 F. Supp. 251 (D.S.C. 1984).
Heller v. United States, 605 F. Supp. 144 (E.D. Pa. 1985).
Grunch v. United States, 538 F. Supp. 534 (E.D. Mich. 1982).
Miller v. United States, 73 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1995).
Matsushita Elec. Co. v. Zeigler, 158 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 1998).
Jarrett v. United States, 874 F.2d 201 (4th Cir. 1989).
Delaney v. United States, 260 F. Supp. 3d 505 (D.S.C. 2017).
Limo v. United States, 852 F. Supp. 50 (D.D.C. 1994).
Hernandez v. Koch, 443 F. Supp. 347 (D.D.C. 1978).
Ocello v. United States, 685 F. Supp. 100 (D.N.J. 1988).
Loughney v. United States, 839 F.2d 186 (3rd Cir. 1988).
Campbell v. United States, 962 F.2d 1579 (11th Cir. 1992).
Patricia S. Abraham, as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Raymond Zedan Abraham, Deceased v. United States, 932 F.2d 900 (11th Cir. 1991).
Ritchie v. United States, 732 F. Supp. 1125 (W.D. Okla. 1990).
Martinez, Adm'x v. Shrock Et Al., 430 U.S. 920 (1977).
Suzanne Brown, Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Kevin Lee Brown, Deceased v. United States of Am., Jose Cruz & Ann Cruz v. United States, 715 F.2d 463 (9th Cir. 1983).
Hartwig v. United States, 80 F. Supp. 2d 765 (N.D. Ohio 1999).
B Hancox v. Performance Anesthesia, P.A., 455 F. App'x 369 (4th Cir. 2011).
McGuire v. Beckmann (E.D. Cal. 2019).
DeShaw v. United States, 704 F. Supp. 186 (D. Mont. 1988).
Vilanova v. United States, 625 F. Supp. 651 (D.P.R. 1985).
Scott v. Casey, 562 F. Supp. 475 (N.D. Ga. 1983).
Lewis v. Sauvey, 708 F. Supp. 167 (E.D. Mich. 1989).
Cox v. Black (W.D. Tex. 2021).
Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Brown v. United States of Am. (D.S.C. 2023).
Leab v. Chambersburg Hosp., 230 F.R.D. 395 (M.D. Penn. 2005).
Brown v. United States of Am. (D.S.C. 2023).
Castaneda v. Henneford (9th Cir. 2008).
William Knowles v. United States (8th Cir. 1996).
Arkan Ali v. Donald Rumsfeld (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Green v. United States, 709 F.2d 1157 (7th Cir. 1983).
Levin v. United States (D. Guam 2016).
Levin v. United States (D. Guam 2017).
Garcia v. United States (D. Or. 2020).
Brown v. United States of Am. (D.S.C. 2023).
JONES v. United States (N.D. Fla. 2024).
Robb v. United States (4th Cir. 1996).
Connell v. Copeland, 706 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D.D.C. 2010).
Connell v. Copeland (D.D.C. 2010).
Levin v. United States (D. Guam 2014).
Matsushita Elec. v. Hartsfield, 158 F.3d 1167 (11th Cir. 1998).
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.