Castaneda v. Henneford (9th Cir. 10/2/08)

MSMITH, Reinhardt, Berzon

The Appellants, PHS doctors facing personal liability for horrific mistreatment of a DHS detainee, appealed from a DistCt finding that the FTCA doesn't preclude Bivens liability for PHS doctors.  The facts of this case are spectacularly horrific. Castaneda developed penile cancer, but DIHS repeatedly denied him a biopsy to determine that it was cancerous (notwithstanding multiple medical recommendations) over a 10+ month period.  The condition worsened.  Once he was released, his penis was amputated within a week ("leaving only a two-centimeter stump") - but the cancer had spread, and he died at age 36. 

The Court of Appeals explained the difference between simple malpractice (recoverable under FTCA) and deliberate indifference.

While the acts giving rise to a constitutional action might also give rise to one for malpractice, the two are nonetheless quite distinct. In Bivens, the Supreme Court rejected a view of “the relationship between a citizen and a federal agent unconstitutionally exercising his authority as no different from the relationship between two private citizens,” noting that an “agent acting—albeit unconstitutionally—in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own.” 403 U.S. at 391-92. 

To describe the allegations in the complaint as averring mere “malpractice” is to miss the point. Castaneda was not a walk-in patient at Defendants’ clinic; neither are Defendants merely alleged to have misread a chart or fumbled a scalpel. The ordinary doctor, no matter how careless, does not hold her patients under lock and key, affirmatively preventing them from receiving the medical care they need and demand. Even when denying his requests for a biopsy in the fall of 2006, DIHS officials were aware that Castaneda “is not able to be released to seek further care due to mandatory hold and[,] according to ICE authorities, may be with this facility for a while.” The Kafkaesque nightmare recounted in Plaintiffs’ complaint, which we assume here to be true, draws its force not only from Defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference, but also from Castaneda’s state-imposed helplessness in the face of that indifference. The element of state coercion transforms this into a species of action categorically different from anything Congress would likely term “malpractice.”

The essential holding of the case is that the FTCA wasn't intended to preempt Bivens liability - contra Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 107-09 (2d Cir. 2000) - and that it wasn't a "special factor" suggesting that PHS doctors be exempt from Bivens. 

Read opinion here: 

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.