From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Sep 22, 1983
719 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)

Opinion

No. 83-1358.

Argued September 16, 1983.

Decided September 22, 1983.

Raymond J. Kenney, Jr., with whom Martin, Magnuson, McCarthy and Kenney was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.

Marianne B. Bowler, Asst. U.S. Atty., with whom William F. Weld, U.S. Atty., was on brief, for defendant, appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Before BOWNES, Circuit Judge, ALDRICH and COWEN, Senior Circuit Judges.

Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.


We agree with the district court, 564 F. Supp. 1146, that the Feres doctrine bars this action. Under the facts, we cannot recognize a duty to follow up because this would mean creating continuous onsets of new causes of action extending beyond the period of active service.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. United States

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
Sep 22, 1983
719 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)
Case details for

Hamilton v. United States

Case Details

Full title:MAUREEN HAMILTON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN B. HAMILTON…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Date published: Sep 22, 1983

Citations

719 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983)

Citing Cases

Morey v. U.S.

), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851, 106 S.Ct. 149, 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985); Sidley v. United States Department of…

Graham v. U.S.

There is no doubt that the Feres doctrine bars medical malpractice claims brought by active duty…