Bates v. Carlow, 593-69.
| Citation | 430 F.2d 1331 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 593-69.,593-69. |
| Parties | John R. BATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. CARLOW, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Donald F. Medsker, of Kripke, Hoffman, Carrigan & Dufty, P. C., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellant.
James L. Treece, U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for defendant-appellee.
Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and SETH, Circuit Judges.
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 immune 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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armendarez v. Tarrant County Hosp. Dist.
...v. Ross, 438 F.2d 230 (6th Cir.1971). Another federal circuit upheld the physician's immunity without discussion. Bates v. Carlow, 430 F.2d 1331, 1332 (10th Cir.1970). Having reviewed all of these authorities, we hold that a medical doctor is not entitled to protection as a quasi-judicial o......
-
Jackson v. Kelly
...within the outer perimeter of his authority does not immunize him from personal liability. Any intimation to the contrary in Bates v. Carlow, 10 Cir., 430 F.2d 1331, that an official operating at defendant's level is absolutely immune from liability for acts performed within the scope of hi......
-
Gurda Farms, Inc. v. MONROE CTY. LEGAL ASSISTANCE CORP.
...forum for adjudication of the legal status of persons who colorably have been acting under federal direction." See also Bates v. Carlow, 430 F.2d 1331 (10th Cir. 1970). State of Oregon v. Cameron, 290 F. Supp. 36 (D.Or.1968), is particularly instructive. There the district court upheld the ......
-
Marshall v. Chawla
...adhere to Mississippi's approach of absolute immunity. Some courts have dealt with the matter in summary fashion. Bates v. Carlow, 430 F.2d 1331, 1332, (10th Cir.1970). Other jurisdictions have been attracted by what might be called the Michigan rule that medical decision making is "inheren......