51 U.S.C. § 20137
Malpractice and negligence suits against United States
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
20137 | Pub. L. 85–568, title III, § 307, as added Pub. L. 94–464, § 3, Oct. 8, 1976, 90 Stat. 1988. | |
In subsection (a), the word “hereafter” is omitted as unnecessary.
In subsection (b), in the last sentence, commas are added after “brought” and “Attorney General” for clarity.
In subsection (e), the words “wrongful act or omission” are substituted for “wrongful act of omission” to correct an error in the law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Levin v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013).
Levin v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013). “”); 51 U. S. C. § 20137 (e) (“For purposes of this section, the provisions of [§ 2680(h)] shall not apply to any cause of action arising out of a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the performance of medical .”
Brignac v. United States, 239 F. Supp. 3d 1367 (N.D. Ga. 2017). “§ 1089 (a) (emphasis added); see also 51 U.S.C. § 20137 (a); 22 U.S.C. § 2702 (a); 38 U.”
Jones v. United States (D.S.D. 2025). “Jones sues the VA for medical malpractice under 51 U.S.C. § 20137 . Id. at 1, 3 . He seeks $150,000 in money damages for “[p]ain, suffering and loss of use” of his left leg Id.”
Davis v. Ennen Eye Ctr. (W.D. Ark. 2024). “Plaintiffs identify 51 U.S.C. § 20137 as the source of law that supplies them with a federal cause of action.”
Bryant v. Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS)-Fed. (S.D. Miss. 2024). “Liberally construing Bryant’s Complaint, he asserts three claims: (1) a FEHBA claim seeking monetary damages for BCBSA’s denial of Regranex; (2) medical malpractice under 51 U.S.C. § 20137 ; and (3) state law negligence.”
Oliver III v. Hoffman Huffman (N.D. Ohio 2023). “In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was admitted and discharged from multiple mental health treatment facilities in the Columbus, Ohio area from April to September 2019.”
Jackson v. Rosen (E.D. Pa. 2020). “Second, Jackson alleges that Rosen was negligent in violation of 51 U.S.C. § 20137 . (Doc. No. 2 at p. 3.) That statute discusses the remedies available to a person injured by “the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedical…”
Sorrell Jr. v. Michael E. DeBakey VA Med. Ctr. (S.D. Tex. 2024). “Sorrell’s complaint alleges that he is entitled to relief from the defendants under 51 U.S.C. § 20137 . (Docket Entry No. 1, p, 3).”
Freeman v. Robert Wood Johnson Hosp. (D.N.J. 2024). “§ 2A:53A-27 and 51 U.S.C. § 20137 for lack of care, medical malpractice, and negligence against Defendant.”
Hirschfield v. U.S. Attorney's Off. for the Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C. 2023). “§ 1592 and 51 U.S.C. § 20137 , plaintiff apparently alleges negligence on defendants’ part.”
Finnegan v. Columbia Doctors (S.D.N.Y. 2021). “Elizabeth Lee, both located in Manhattan, violated a federal statute governing medical malpractice claims brought against the United States, 51 U.S.C. § 20137 . Specifically, he alleges that in February 2021, he “consented to treatment with the defendant [who] then terminated…”
Smith v. Puget Sound Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (W.D. Wash. 2021). “Rather, they confer immunity on Department of Veterans Affairs 15 (“VA”) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) medical personnel by 16 requiring patients injured by these personnel to recover from the United States under the Federal 17 Tort Claims Act…”
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.