Hajdusek v. United States
895 F.3d 146 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) bars negligence claims against the United States when the challenged government conduct involves an element of judgment or choice that is susceptible to policy analysis, even if the discretion is abused.
Facts:
- In August 2010, Joseph Hajdusek enrolled in the Marine Corps Delayed Entry Program (DEP), a program for prospective recruits, known as 'poolees', to prepare for basic training.
- Poolees in the DEP are not considered active-duty Marines and are not entitled to military or Department of Defense benefits.
- After Hajdusek took an approved family ski trip, the new manager of his recruiting station, Staff Sergeant Mikelo, became dissatisfied with Hajdusek's absence from a pool event.
- Mikelo ordered Hajdusek to appear for a physical training session on March 1.
- During the session, Mikelo subjected Hajdusek to a workout that was significantly longer and more strenuous than any he had previously experienced, with only two twenty-second water breaks over two hours.
- Hajdusek collapsed several times near the end of the session.
- A few days later, Hajdusek was diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis, a condition where muscle tissue dies from extreme overuse, which left him permanently disabled.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Hajdusek filed a lawsuit against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleging negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The United States moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claim was barred by the FTCA's discretionary function exception.
- The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss.
- Hajdusek (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act bar a negligence claim against the United States arising from a Marine Corps sergeant's decision to subject a recruit-in-training to a particularly strenuous physical workout?
Opinions:
Majority - Kayatta, Circuit Judge
Yes, the discretionary function exception bars the claim. A government employee's action is protected if it is both discretionary and susceptible to policy analysis, which was the case here. First, the sergeant's conduct was discretionary because Marine Corps guidance provides only general instructions for physical training, leaving specifics like intensity and duration to the judgment of the supervising personnel. Second, this discretion was susceptible to policy analysis because it required balancing competing policy goals of the DEP: preparing poolees for the rigors of basic training and maintaining discipline versus avoiding injury and attrition. The court concluded that Congress did not intend for the judiciary to second-guess such military training decisions, which inherently involve weighing these types of policy considerations.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad application of the FTCA's discretionary function exception, particularly within the military context. It establishes that even operational-level decisions by lower-ranking personnel can be shielded from tort liability if they involve balancing competing policy goals. The ruling sets a high bar for plaintiffs to overcome this immunity, suggesting that the government action must be so objectively unreasonable that it cannot be considered a product of policy judgment. This outcome highlights a potential gap in legal recourse for individuals in military-adjacent programs who may suffer injuries but are not eligible for traditional military or veterans' benefits.
Unlock the full brief for Hajdusek v. United States