He challenges the legal basis for his charges, arguing “it is against public policy to prosecute a military physician for negligence committed in the course of medical treatment.”

Appellant, nevertheless, points to the legislative history of 10 U.S.C. § 1089 (1988) as evidence of a legislative intent not to prosecute military physicians for simple negligence in the performance of medical duties. 10 U.S.C.

Although appellant argues Congress could not have intended to immunize military physicians from civil liability but leave them liable criminally under the UCMJ for negligent medical treatment, we see nothing facially inconsistent in

In response to this motion, defense counsel stated his intention of calling Doctors Neuman and Arthur on the issue of medical negligence by the attending medical personnel.

Both doctors had written reports which were highly critical of the emergency team’s actions at the scene. Dr.

In Reveles , we held the defense had not made a sufficient proffer to justify producing the medical doctor.

THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE AIR FORCE DOCTORS WHO TREATED APPELLANT WAS A SUFFICIENT INTERVENING PROXIMATE CAUSE TO RELIEVE HER OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY; AND/OR D.

Even if the doctors negligently failed to diagnose Appellant’s pregnancy on April 7, April 19, and July 3, their negligence was, at best, a contributing cause.

Notwithstanding any negligence by the doctors before she went into labor, her lack of due care for the safety of her baby, once labor began, “play[ed] a material role in the victim’s decease.” Romero, 1 M.J. at 229 . D.

MJ: Counsel, in your offer do you intend — are you trying to offer evidence that the doctor was somewhat negligent in his treatment? DC: Not this doctor, sir. Sir, if I may make a very brief offer of proof.

It would be grossly negligent for the doctor not to resolve the doubt and ascertain from the accused the true cause, and it is clear from this record that whatever history he obtained was not elicited for the purpose of obtaining facts

of the attending physician.

Before an accused can be relieved of the consequences of his acts, the treatment of the attending physicians must rise to the level of gross negligence of such a nature as to turn aside the course of probable recovery. State v.

to do so was no more than simple negligence.

CEDARBURG, Chief Judge: Appellant was convicted by general court-martial comprised of officer members, contrary to his plea, of involuntary manslaughter through culpable negligence.

Appellant, a medical doctor and board eligible urologist, was a staff urologist at the Naval Regional Medical Center, .Great Lakes, Illinois on 22 March 1979.

While no assault and battery cases have been found, the Government does cite one reported civilian decision involving manslaughter in which a physician was charged with criminal negligence by exposing a patient to excessive X-rays.

of the attending physician.

We also hold that removal of the victim from a respirator prior to brain death does not relieve an accused of criminal responsibility unless the decision by the physician, or in this case the victim’s legal representative, “was no

more than simple negligence.”

AIRMAN RILEY WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO HAVE HER GUILT OR INNOCENCE DETERMINED BY THE MEMBERS SINCE THE MEMBERS, HAVING CONVICTED HER OF UNPREMEDITATED MURDER, NEVER, PURSUANT TO THE MILITARY JUDGE’S INSTRUCTIONS, CONSIDERED WHETHER THE NEGLIGENCE

OF THE AIR FORCE DOCTORS WAS A SUFFICIENT INTERVENING PROXIMATE CAUSE TO RELIEVE HER OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY; D.

* * * * * * If a physician violates any one of these duties, he has committed simple negligence. If he violates one of these in a gross departure from applicable standards, he has committed culpable negligent [sic].

Although the above discussion expresses our distaste for holding a physician criminally liable for simple negligence, the Court does not decide that issue today.

As best we can determine, Commander Billig is the only physician in the history of both military and civilian criminal law in the United States to be convicted of negligent homicide for simple negligence during the course of patient

Instead, he disregarded this need and the risk, and instead deferred to the boy’s objections to seeing a doctor. Thirdly, proximate causation must exist between the appellant’s negligent omission and his son’s death.

See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106 (“[A] complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth Amendment.”).

Army Court of Military Review has succinctly noted: Civilian courts ... uniformly [have] held that removal of the victim from the respirator prior to brain death does not relieve an accused of responsibility if the decision by the physician

to do so was no more than simple negligence.