Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Samuel Gold v. United States, 16616_1 (1967)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 16616_1 Visitors: 20
Filed: Dec. 20, 1967
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 387 F.2d 378 Samuel GOLD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America. No. 16616. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 8, 1967. Decided Dec. 20, 1967. Jerome H. Ellis, Verlin, Goldberg, Ellis & Epstein, Philadelphia, Pa. (David Goldberg, Jerome R. Verlin, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant. Morton Hollander, Chief Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. (Carl Eardley, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Drew J.T. O'Keefe, U.S. Atty., Robert C. McDi
More

387 F.2d 378

Samuel GOLD, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America.

No. 16616.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1967.
Decided Dec. 20, 1967.

Jerome H. Ellis, Verlin, Goldberg, Ellis & Epstein, Philadelphia, Pa. (David Goldberg, Jerome R. Verlin, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellant.

Morton Hollander, Chief Appellate Section, Dept. of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C. (Carl Eardley, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Drew J.T. O'Keefe, U.S. Atty., Robert C. McDiarmid, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

1

The plaintiff, a civilian employee at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, sustained injuries while performing his duties. He was furnished medical and surgical treatment by the defendant United States at the Philadelphia Naval Hospital. He brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking damages from the United States for alleged malpractice in the treatment accorded to him at the Naval Hospital.

2

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States on the ground that the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C.A. 751 et seq., to which the plaintiff had resorted prior to the institution of the instant action, is the exclusive remedy available to the plaintiff.

3

We are of the opinion that the District Court did not err in its disposition. The Order granting summary judgment will be affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer