Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 2022–2026 · leading case:
Carter v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-01315 (D. Md. May 24, 2022).
Carter v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-01315 (D. Md. May 24, 2022).
· cites it 9× “Codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2733a, this amendment permits service members to file administrative claims for injuries incident to service caused by medical malpractice, in some contexts.”
Larumbe v. Austin, No. 2022-1817 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2023).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiffs request that the Court set aside as unlawful the Department of Defense’s (“DoD”) denial of Martinez’s medical malpractice claim under 10 U.S.C. § 2733a. Complaint at 2–3, ECF No.”
Lee v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 716 F. Supp. 3d 911 (S.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 4× “10 U.S.C. § 2733a. Much like section 2733, the 17 Secretary’s decisions regarding administrative claims brought under section 2733a 18 are “final” and not subject to judicial review.”
Luckey v. Hegseth, No. 2025-0299 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2026).
· cites it 2× “It asserted that it had undergone “a thorough review of [Plaintiff’s] appeal and the written record” but had “adopt[ed] the Navy finding the claim fails to state a claim cognizable under 10 U.S.C. § 2733a and its im- plementing regulation.”
Petitfere v. Austin, No. 2022-1819 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 2023).
“Petitfrere does assert in the complaint itself that DoD violated a provision of the MCA requiring it to make malpractice determinations "consistent with generally accepted standards used in a majority of States," 10 U.S.C. § 2733a(f)(2)(B), by failing to cite expert opinion…”
Goss v. United States, No. 1:24-cv-00406 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2024).
“Goss filed an administrative claim with the Navy, seeking damages for the alleged medical malpractice that led to Petty Officer Gray’s wrongful death. ECF No.”
Rourke v. USAF, No. 4:23-cv-40013 (D. Mass. Feb. 7, 2025).
“]” 10 U.S.C. § 2733a(b)(4). Applicable regulations provide an exception for claims filed during the calendar year 2020, requiring such claims to be filed “within three years after the claim accrues.”
Beck v. United States, No. 24-1078 (U.S. Nov. 24, 2025).
“1457–1460, 10 U. S. C. §2733a. Congress, therefore, is “undoubtedly aware of ” the prob- lems posed by Feres and “can change [Feres] if it likes.”
Lugo, No. 1:25-cv-01352 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2026).
“Lugo did not oppose the motion and instead filed a response in which she indicated her intent to claim prevailing-party status since the lawsuit allegedly “caused the Army to fulfill the relief sought.”
10 U.S.C. § 2733a(a): 1 case
Carter v. United States, No. 1:21-cv-01315 (D. Md. May 24, 2022).
“Codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2733a, this amendment permits service members to file administrative claims for injuries incident to service caused by medical malpractice, in some contexts.”
10 U.S.C. § 2733a(b)(3): 1 case
Luckey v. Hegseth, No. 2025-0299 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2026).
“It asserted that it had undergone “a thorough review of [Plaintiff’s] appeal and the written record” but had “adopt[ed] the Navy finding the claim fails to state a claim cognizable under 10 U.S.C. § 2733a and its im- plementing regulation.”
10 U.S.C. § 2733a(b)(4): 1 case
Rourke v. USAF, No. 4:23-cv-40013 (D. Mass. Feb. 7, 2025).
“]” 10 U.S.C. § 2733a(b)(4). Applicable regulations provide an exception for claims filed during the calendar year 2020, requiring such claims to be filed “within three years after the claim accrues.”
10 U.S.C. § 2733a(e): 1 case
Lee v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 716 F. Supp. 3d 911 (S.D. Cal. 2024).
“10 U.S.C. § 2733a. Much like section 2733, the 17 Secretary’s decisions regarding administrative claims brought under section 2733a 18 are “final” and not subject to judicial review.”
10 U.S.C. § 2733a(f)(2)(B): 1 case
Petitfere v. Austin, No. 2022-1819 (D.D.C. Aug. 21, 2023).
“Petitfrere does assert in the complaint itself that DoD violated a provision of the MCA requiring it to make malpractice determinations "consistent with generally accepted standards used in a majority of States," 10 U.S.C. § 2733a(f)(2)(B), by failing to cite expert opinion…”
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.