The Supreme Court’s Denial of Military Medical Malpractice Review: Why It’s Time for Change
As a medical malpractice legal consultant, I’ve seen firsthand the devastating impact of medical negligence on patients and their families. While civilian patients have legal recourse when malpractice occurs, service members do not—due to a long-standing legal precedent known as the Feres Doctrine.
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a case involving a paralyzed veteran who sought to challenge this doctrine. The case involved a Maryland Air National Guard reservist who underwent surgery at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for chronic neck pain. Tragically, trauma to his spinal cord during the procedure left him permanently paralyzed. Despite the clear evidence of medical harm, his legal options for seeking justice were nonexistent due to the Feres Doctrine.
The Feres Doctrine: An Outdated Barrier to Justice
Established in 1950 (Feres v. United States), the Feres Doctrine prevents active-duty service members from suing the government for injuries sustained due to military medical malpractice. This means that while a civilian in the same situation could file a lawsuit and potentially receive compensation for life-altering medical negligence, a service member is left without legal recourse.
The original intent of Feres was to protect military decision-making, especially in combat situations, from being second-guessed in court. However, applying this doctrine to peacetime medical care—especially in facilities like Walter Reed, far from the battlefield—goes far beyond its intended scope. There is no logical reason why a military doctor working in a stateside hospital should be held to a different standard than a civilian doctor performing the same procedure in a non-military setting.
The serviceman in this case was also inactive when he was operated upon, which further makes the Supreme Court’s decision to decline to review the case disappointing. This situation is likely not what was envisioned when the Court initially granted the military immunity for service members becoming injured due to negligence of others in the armed forces.
A Path Forward: Legislative Reform
While the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the case is disappointing, it is not the final word. Congress has the power to revise the law and introduce reasonable legal remedies for service members harmed by medical negligence.
A balanced approach could involve:
- Allowing malpractice claims for non-combat medical care while preserving immunity for battlefield-related injuries.
- Implementing statutory limits on damages to ensure that valid claims are compensated while also protecting the military’s budget from excessive legal costs.
- Creating a special military medical claims system to provide structured compensation outside of standard civilian courts, similar to how the Veterans Affairs (VA) system handles disability claims.
Justice for Service Members
The sacrifice of those who serve in the military should never include forfeiting their right to competent medical care. When serious medical errors occur in military hospitals under routine conditions, service members should have access to some form of recompense—just as their civilian counterparts do.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to revisit this issue is a setback, but it also serves as a call to action for lawmakers. Reforming the law to allow service members to seek justice without undermining military readiness is both possible and necessary. It is time for Congress to step up and ensure that those who defend our country are also defended when they suffer from preventable medical failures.
Dr. Bret Ostrager
Medical-Legal Consultant