Levin v. United States

Background

A veteran sought cataract surgery at a U.S. Naval Hospital in Guam. He alleges that he withdrew consent orally just before the operation, but the Navy doctor proceeded and complications left him with lasting eye injury. After naming both the doctor and the United States in court, the district court substituted the United States for the doctor and dismissed the veteran’s battery claim because a federal law normally bars battery suits against the Government.

Reasoning

The legal question was whether a spécial provision in the Gonzalez Act makes the usual exception to government liability inapplicable for medical acts by covered military medical personnel. The Court examined the statute’s wording and history, rejected the Government’s argument that the provision merely protected individual military medical staff from suit, and concluded the statute plainly directs that the intentional-tort bar does not apply to medical claims covered by the Act. Because that provision removes the usual bar, the veteran’s battery claim against the United States may proceed. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision means patients who say they were operated on without consent by covered military medical personnel can sue the United States for battery rather than being blocked by the FTCA’s intentional-tort exception. Negligence claims already fit under the FTCA; this ruling specifically opens battery claims based on lack of consent. The ruling reverses the earlier appellate decision and may affect similar suits involving military or similarly covered agency health care personnel.