Michael J. Bartlett v. Eric K. Shinseki
2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 499
| Vet. App. | 2011Background
- Bartlett appeals a September 17, 2008 Board decision denying 38 U.S.C. § 1151 benefits for injuries from an altercation with another patient while admitted to a VA hospital.
- Board held the injuries were outside § 1151 scope because they did not arise from VA hospital care as such, but from a third‑party attack coincidental to hospitalization.
- Bartlett alleges back and neck injuries from the cafeteria incident; he contends VA staff supervision in the lock‑down ward caused the injuries.
- Administrative history shows Bartlett's 2002 § 1151 claim; the Board denied relief “as a matter of law.”
- The dispute centers on whether “hospital care” includes supervision of dangerous patients in a lock‑down ward, not merely treatment or examination.
- The court remands for fact development consistent with the decision, with consideration of additional evidence on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘hospital care’ under §1151 includes supervision in a lock‑down ward | Bartlett argues hospital care includes supervision to protect patients from dangerous others. | Secretary argues hospital care is limited to medical services, not general supervision. | Hospital care includes services unique to hospitalization; not limited to treatment. |
| Whether the injury was proximately caused by VA fault during hospital care | Bartlett maintains staff negligence in supervision caused the injury. | Secretary contends injuries resulted from a third‑party altercation not caused by hospital care. | Issues of fault and proximate cause must be re‑assessed on remand. |
| Whether the Board misapplied law by deeming the pattern outside §1151 | Bartlett asserts the Board misapplied statutory definitions and case law. | Secretary maintains the Board correctly interpreted §1151 in light of precedent. | Board misapplication requires remand for proper fact‑finding and legal analysis. |
| Whether FTCA preclusion applies to §1151 benefits | Bartlett argues FTCA relief does not preclude §1151 benefits. | Secretary asserts FTCA is an alternative remedy and precludes §1151 relief where applicable. | FTCA availability does not preclude §1151 benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Nicholson, 433 F.3d 822 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (hospital care is narrower than the general hospitalization experience)
- Mangham v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 284 (2009) (injuries coincident with hospital care are not automatically §1151 recoveries)
- Loving v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 96 (2005) (injury during examination is coincidental to examination and not caused by it)
- Edenfield v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 384 (1995) (limits abstract treatment to factual context)
- Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1991) (clear erroneous factual findings require remand)
- Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369 (1998) (remand appropriate when law misapplied)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (statutory interpretation avoids superfluous words)