No malpractice for servicemembers?

[Spekkio]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/31/eveningnews/main3776580.shtml

I came across this story, and was very disheartened. I was not aware that military personnel had no recourse if mistreated by military doctors. I can understand the law in certain circumstances (such as fatal wounds sustained in combat), but this particular case arose from a routine doctor visit like any other a civilian might have. It's especially frustrating when paired with the limitations Tricare places on people when seeking medical care in the first place. For example, if I don't feel like the doctor up here is up to par, I have no other options available to me. As it was explained to me, Tricare Prime will only cover a visit to an ER in the case of an emergency during after-hours operation of the medical facility up here. If I ran into a similar case as the article, requested to see a specialist, and the doctor refused, I'd have to pay out of pocket or be SOL (such a case is happening with another guy having knee trouble).

Thoughts?

 

[nursesoon]

Less risk of being named in a lawsuit was one of my reasons for looking at the military but then I'm one of the ones going to be sued so conflict of interest. Nurses often carry their own malpractice insurance as well believe it or not.

 

[torpedo0126]

back in NROTC, went to Japan on a cruise. the MIDN who were on the ship before us were given vaccinations because of some flu strain that was going on over there (don't remember exactly). Anyways, they called them back the next day because it turned out the Corpsman injected them with the wrong thing.

thank God it wasn't serious, they just warned them they could have gotten sick...kinda scary though

 

[Brett327]

I haven't fully digested the case law, but prohibition from suing for "injuries sustained as a result of their military service" does not equal prohibition from suing for medical malpractice.

Brett

 

[HH-60H]

I haven't fully digested the case law, but prohibition from suing for "injuries sustained as a result of their military service" does not equal prohibition from suing for medical malpractice.

Brett

I agree, the article seems to be twisting things.

EDIT: However, after doing so more research, it seems correct. The article just doesn't explain Feres doctrine very well.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37543.php

 

[Clux4]

You may not be able to sue but your spouse cab. I met a guy whose spouse sued the sh!t out of Bethesda. Wife was messed up pretty bad during delivery and daughter has major complications.

Did a guy(aircrew) in Pensacola not sue the doctors down there about 3 or 4 years ago?

 

[Brett327]

I agree, the article seems to be twisting things.

EDIT: However, after doing so more research, it seems correct. The article just doesn't explain Feres doctrine very well.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37543.php

Still seems like there's some judicial wiggle room. Just appeal your case to the 9th circuit court - I'm sure they're willing to take a crack at "The Man."

Brett

 

[Spekkio]

I haven't fully digested the case law, but prohibition from suing for "injuries sustained as a result of their military service" does not equal prohibition from suing for medical malpractice.

That's what I thought when I first read it, but the article seems to outline cases not resulting from military service where a person was mistreated by medical and had to just deal with it.

thank God it wasn't serious, they just warned them they could have gotten sick...kinda scary though

The scary part is that the people involved are still allowed to touch patients.