Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsBivensFederal Tort Claims ActOfficial immunityBivensFTCAPublic Health ServicePHS
Facts
While detained at a federal correctional facility, Castaneda repeatedly sought treatment for a painful, growing penile lesion and later a groin lump. PHS medical personnel and outside specialists repeatedly advised that he needed a biopsy, but petitioners Dr. Hui and Commander Gonsalves denied requested procedures as elective while he received only conservative treatment. After a biopsy was finally authorized, ICE released Castaneda; the biopsy then confirmed penile cancer, his penis was amputated, the cancer had metastasized, and he later died. He and, after his death, his estate representatives sued the United States under the FTCA and the individual PHS officials under Bivens.
Issue
Does 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) preclude a Bivens action against Public Health Service officers or employees for alleged constitutional violations arising out of the performance of medical or related functions within the scope of their employment?
Rule
Section 233(a) provides that the FTCA remedy against the United States is exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding against a PHS officer or employee for personal injury resulting from the performance of medical, surgical, dental, or related functions while acting within the scope of office or employment. Accordingly, PHS officers and employees are absolutely immune from personal Bivens liability for harms arising from such conduct.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
At a federal detention center in Phoenix, commissioned Public Health Service physician Dr. Lena Morrell refused to order a detainee's recommended cardiac test, allegedly causing the detainee to suffer a fatal heart attack. The estate sues Dr. Morrell personally for damages under the Fifth Amendment, alleging deliberate indifference, and also sues the United States under the FTCA.
Assuming Dr. Morrell was acting within the scope of her PHS employment in providing medical care, which is the best result?
Explanation. Section 233(a) provides that the FTCA remedy against the United States is exclusive of any other civil action against a PHS officer or employee for personal injury or death resulting from medical or related functions performed within the scope of office or employment. The Court treated that text as granting absolute immunity from personal Bivens liability in that circumstance. The adequacy of the FTCA remedy and Attorney General certification are not prerequisites under the majority opinion.