The complaint alleged that the doctor was negligent and committed malpractice by administering the # 3 injection in spite of the negative reactions apparently caused by the # 2 injection.

The second part of the argument here is that the statute was not meant to shield negligent acts of either manufacturers or administering doctors, but was meant rather to protect them only from ‘strict liability’ claims.

We note without further comment the logic trap this argument creates for the Amendolas— if the negligent action of the doctor which caused the injury was not vaccine-related, then there would be no eligibility for compensation under

doctor who negligently performed the mini-MAZE procedure.

Ollis’s arguments regarding VA fault for negligent referral to a particular doctor under § 1151(a)(1)(A) to be “speculative at best,” i.e., that there was no proximate cause between VA negligence and the injury, id., and we

Ollis’s VA medical doctors were negligent under § 1151(a)(1)(A) by recommending the mini-MAZE procedure to him, and we remand for consideration of this question. B.

It is not appropriate to require notice of deficiencies, counseling, or an opportunity tó improve, when a penchant for negligence is shown which would destroy the confidence of doctors and staff in the reliability of laboratory reports

The Amendolas alleged that the doctor was negligent in administering a third injection of the vaccine in spite of negative reactions caused by the second injection. Id. at 1181 .

The Clarification stated: *1344 There is necessarily a factual overlap [between] this vaccine claim and the negligence case in state court. Dr.

Schweller’s report of February 6, 2004, mentions that [the Aulls] were given assurances by the physician who administered the September 8, 2000, immunization that the immunization would not adversely affect his health.

Calhoun, 593 F.2d 127, 128 (10th Cir.1979) (affirming the trial court’s submission to the jury of the question of how much probative weight *1335 should be assigned to an admission of mistake by a doctor in a case alleging negligence

on the part of the doctor); Becton v.

of negligence and compensation: Member: In the non-VA sector . . .

, tends to make the physician observe the rules.

But in the Federal context, including the VA, physicians are not liable for negligence under the same circum- stances, and under Federal law a physician in a VA hospital is not personally liable for malpractice.

Harper—the HR employee who erroneously converted the physicians to permanent appointments—re- ceived a written admonishment for his negligence. Id. at 13; see J.A. 182–83 at 364:1–365:5. All six physicians, in- cluding Dr.

We explained that removal was proper under chapter 75—without an op- portunity for the employee to improve her performance— given that the technologist’s actions demonstrated “a pen- chant for negligence” that might “destroy the

confidence of doctors and staff in the reliability of laboratory reports.”