Ingram v. Faruque
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18585
10th Cir.2013Background
- Ingram, a VAMC employee, was escorted to the ER after a coworker reported homicidal statements; psychiatrists examined him and he was held in the psychiatric ward for over 24 hours despite signing a consent form and requesting to leave.
- Ingram sued six VA employees in their individual capacities alleging Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations for unlawful detention; he did not file an FTCA claim.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the VA Immunity Statute channels remedies to the FTCA and thus precludes a Bivens action; the district court granted dismissal without prejudice.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the VA Immunity Statute provides an adequate alternative remedy that precludes Bivens and whether Ingram’s claims and the defendants fall within the statute’s scope.
- The court held § 7316 makes the FTCA remedy exclusive for harms arising from VA medical care (including certain intentional torts via § 7316(f)), and that Ingram’s claims and all defendants fall within that statutory scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Bivens remedy is available despite the VA Immunity Statute | Ingram: Bivens should be permitted for constitutional detention claims | Defendants: § 7316 channels claims to the FTCA and precludes Bivens | The VA Immunity Statute provides an exclusive FTCA remedy and precludes Bivens |
| Whether § 7316(a)(1) is exclusive like 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) | Ingram: FTCA/§7316 does not bar Bivens here | Defendants: §7316(a)(1)’s language excludes other civil actions against employees | §7316(a)(1)’s plain text makes the FTCA remedy exclusive; Hui controls |
| Whether § 7316(f) covers intentional torts (false imprisonment/false arrest) | Ingram: his claim is not medical malpractice but intentional and outside §7316 | Defendants: §7316(f) restores FTCA coverage for intentional torts by VA health-care employees | §7316(f) applies and permits FTCA recovery for intentional torts arising in the context of VA medical care |
| Whether the individual defendants qualify as "health care employees" or "supporting personnel" under §7316 | Ingram: some defendants are not medical personnel and thus not covered | Defendants: physicians are covered; others acted as supporting personnel in furnishing medical care | Doctors are physicians under §7316; non-physician defendants acted in support of medical personnel and fall within §7316’s coverage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of an implied damages action for Fourth Amendment violations)
- Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (authorized Bivens remedy for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799 (statutory FTCA/medical-immunity provision can preclude Bivens)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (two-step framework for deciding whether to recognize Bivens)
- Minneci v. Pollard, 565 U.S. 118 (refusal to extend Bivens in new contexts)
- Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (declined Bivens where comprehensive statutory scheme exists)
- Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412 (courtly deference to Congress in creating remedies; absence of statutory relief not dispositive)
- Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (limits on extending Bivens beyond its original contexts)
- Franklin v. United States, 992 F.2d 1492 (10th Cir. discussion of §7316’s predecessor and §7316(f)’s effect)
- Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Bureau of Reclamation, 599 F.3d 1165 (standard of review for jurisdictional factfinding)