Patients who receive medical treatment at Veterans Affairs hospitals, military medical facilities, and other federally operated healthcare institutions generally expect to have the same legal remedies available as those treated by private healthcare providers. While injured patients may pursue compensation when negligent medical care causes harm, claims against the federal government are governed by unique procedural rules that differ significantly from traditional medical malpractice lawsuits. A recent decision demonstrates how failing to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act can prevent a medical malpractice claim from moving forward, regardless of the seriousness of the underlying allegations. If you believe you suffered injuries because of negligent care at a federal healthcare facility, speaking with an experienced Baltimore medical malpractice attorney can help ensure your claim is properly preserved.
Facts and Procedural History
Reportedly, the plaintiff underwent an elective surgical procedure at a Veterans Affairs medical center in Arizona. The plaintiff alleged that while under anesthesia, a physician administered medication and performed an additional medical procedure without obtaining informed consent. The plaintiff initially filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the physician in state court. The United States subsequently intervened, asserting that the physician was acting within the scope of federal employment during the procedure, removed the case to federal court, and substituted the United States as the defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The federal court ultimately dismissed the malpractice action because the plaintiff had not exhausted the administrative remedies required by the FTCA before filing suit.
It is reported that after the dismissal of the malpractice action, the plaintiff filed additional lawsuits challenging the conduct of various federal agencies and government attorneys involved in defending the original case. The plaintiff asserted constitutional claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and allegations relating to fraud on the court, contending that government officials had acted improperly during the defense of the underlying medical malpractice litigation. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on multiple jurisdictional and procedural grounds.
Published by Arfaa Law Group












