Purcell v. United States
656 F.3d 463 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Feres doctrine, the U.S. government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries to service members that arise out of, or are in the course of, activity incident to military service.
Facts:
- Christopher Lee Purcell was a twenty-one-year-old active-duty hospital corpsman in the U.S. Navy, stationed at the Brunswick Naval Air Station.
- Purcell was living in the on-base barracks and had been experiencing social and emotional problems, for which the Navy had provided prior care.
- On January 27, 2008, the base was informed that Purcell had a gun in his room and was threatening suicide.
- Navy and Department of Defense (DOD) personnel responded to Purcell's on-base residence.
- The officers searched Purcell's room and found evidence of a firearm but did not locate the weapon and never searched Purcell's person.
- After a struggle, officers subdued and handcuffed Purcell.
- An officer later permitted Purcell to use the bathroom, instructing another officer to remove one of his handcuffs.
- Inside the bathroom, Purcell pulled a hidden gun from his waistband and committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest.
Procedural Posture:
- Purcell's estate filed an administrative tort claim with the U.S. Navy.
- The Navy denied the claim based on the Feres doctrine.
- Michael Purcell, as representative of the estate, filed a wrongful death action against the United States in the U.S. District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- The district court (trial court) dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the claim was barred by the Feres doctrine.
- Michael Purcell (appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 Feres doctrine bar a wrongful death claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the suicide of an active-duty service member in his on-base barracks, where the alleged negligence involved the failure of military and Department of Defense personnel to properly handle the situation?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The Feres doctrine bars the wrongful death claim because the injuries arose out of activity incident to military service. The court reasoned that the dispositive inquiry is whether the service member stood in a type of relationship to the military at the time of the injury such that the injury arose out of activity incident to service. Here, Purcell was an active-duty service member who committed suicide in his on-base barracks, and the individuals whose alleged negligence caused his death were Navy and DOD personnel responding to the situation. The claim directly implicates military management, supervision, and control over a service member, which is the core concern of the Feres doctrine. Although the doctrine is widely criticized, it remains binding precedent that must be applied.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the expansive scope of the Feres doctrine, demonstrating its application even in non-combat situations involving alleged negligence that has a civilian parallel (i.e., law enforcement response to a suicide threat). The decision reinforces that the 'incident to service' test focuses heavily on the status of the parties (active-duty service member, military personnel) and the location of the event (on a military base). It solidifies the principle that claims questioning military supervision, discipline, or internal procedures are almost certainly barred, preventing judicial second-guessing of military management decisions and maintaining a high bar for service members seeking redress under the FTCA.
