Tag: Federal Courts

Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 4, 2021. People waiting for their turn to be vaccinated against Covid-19 at the Club Atlético River Plate Microstadium.

Considerations from Argentina on the Judicial Control of Public Health Policies

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By María Natalia Echegoyemberry and Francisco Verbic

This article looks at the COVID-19 pandemic response in Argentina, with a particular focus on the judicial control of public health policies. Looking ahead, we discuss the mechanisms that need to be implemented in order to avoid undue judicial interference, which is particularly critical in countries like Argentina, where the Judiciary is delegitimized and strongly questioned.

We focus on a case in Argentina where a federal judge ordered the suspension of the campaign for pediatric vaccination against COVID-19.

Read More

Supreme Court of the United States.

Overhauling our Federal Courts to Preserve and Advance Public Health

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Sarah Wetter and Lawrence O. Gostin

In the Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton called judicial independence “the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” Judicial independence is also critical for public health. Over the last century, courts have affirmed broad public health powers and established modern health-related rights. Yet in a significant departure from history, today’s federal courts have been far from impartial, issuing ideology-driven decisions that will resound for decades to come, with harmful public health consequences.

Read More

Caveat Veterans: Limitations and Repose in Medical Malpractice Actions under FTCA

astein Leave a comment

By Alex Stein

To be able to sue the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), an aggrieved person must first present his claim to the appropriate agency within two years of the claim’s accrual. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). When the agency fails to make a final disposition within six months, the claim is deemed denied and the person may sue the government in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). Alternatively, he may continue the process with the agency. If the agency ultimately denies the claim, he would have another six months to file a suit. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).

Augutis v. United States — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 5553084 (7th Cir. 2013), features a medical patient that did exactly this. Alas, when he sued the government for medical malpractice, allegedly committed by his doctors at the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Illinois, it was too late. His suit was blocked by the Illinois statute of repose (735 ILCS 5/13–212(a)) that nullifies an aggrieved patient’s right to sue his doctor within four years of the date of the alleged malpractice. The patient argued that this statute was preempted by the abovementioned provisions of FTCA, but the Seventh Circuit disagreed.  Here is why: Read More

Medical Malpractice: The “Same Specialty” Requirement in Federal Courts

astein Leave a comment

By Alex Stein

Medical malpractice suits reach federal courts through two channels: diversity and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The FTCA framework was set up (inter alia) for suits against doctors working at veterans hospitals or another facility operated by the federal government. The diversity framework was designed for parties residing in different states. Under both frameworks, duty of care, negligence and all other substantive issues are determined by applicable state law. Federal law, on the other hand, controls every procedural and evidentiary issue. For FTCA, this rule was established in 28 U.S.C. § 2674; see, e.g., Gil v. Reed, 535 F.3d 551, 558 n.2 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Arpin v. United States, 521 F.3d 769, 776 (7th Cir. 2008)). For diversity litigation, this rule was established by Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).

This rule is very clear. Far less clear, however, are the lines separating “substance” from “procedure.”

Many states have established the “same specialty” requirement for expert witnesses testifying about medical malpractice. Under this requirement, an expert witness must practice medicine in the same specialty as the defendant doctor. Failure to satisfy this requirement disqualifies the witness. Her testimony about the duty of care owed by the defendant to his patient becomes inadmissible. This requirement has led to fierce controversies that state courts have resolved in different ways: see here, here, here, here, and here.

How will it play out in a federal court? Read More