John R. Bates v. Thomas J. Carlow
John R. BATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. CARLOW, Defendant-Appellee
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
This action, originally filed in the state courts of Colorado, presents a claim by plaintiff Bates for personal injuries suffered through the claimed negligence of Carlow, a physician who at the time of the alleged negligence was commissioned in the Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. It is undisputed that the acts of Carlow which premise the contention of malpractice were performed during the scope of Carlow’s employment by an agency of the United States. The case was properly removed to federal court, Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U. S. 402 , 89 S.Ct. 1813 , 23 L.Ed.2d 396 . The court below then dismissed the action on the ground that Carlow was im- *1332 muñe from personal liability. The dismissal was specifically without prejudice to any claim Bates might have under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Both the judgment of dismissal and its qualifications were manifestly correct. Morgan v. Willingham, 10 Cir., 424 F.2d 200 . The district court did not hold, as appellant would appear to argue, that the alleged acts of Carlow were of a discretionary nature as that term creates an exception to governmental liability under § 2680 of the Act.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.