Wheeler Tarpeh-Doe v. United States
1991 WL 162967, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843, 771 F. Supp. 427 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception does not shield the government from liability for negligent supervision when specific agency regulations establish a duty of care, and the government's failure to supervise an employee (whose deficiencies were known and created foreseeable risk) does not involve a permissible exercise of policy judgment.
Facts:
- In 1981, the United States Agency for International Development (AID) assigned Linda Wheeler Tarpeh-Doe to a post in Monrovia, Liberia.
- In March 1982, a State Department inspection revealed widespread dissatisfaction with Dr. Theodore E. Lefton, the Regional Medical Officer in Monrovia, due to his poor attitude and lack of availability.
- Ambassador William Swing and Dr. Jerome M. Korcak, Medical Director, decided to curtail Dr. Lefton's assignment but permitted him to remain at post until November 1, 1982, without placing his service under heightened scrutiny or expediting a replacement.
- On May 18, 1982, Linda Wheeler Tarpeh-Doe delivered her son, Nyenpan, in Monrovia; within three weeks, Nyenpan contracted a bacterial infection that developed into spinal meningitis.
- On June 5, 1982, Linda brought Nyenpan to the embassy health unit where Dr. Lefton examined him, referred him to Dr. David E. Van Reken, and despite parental objections, Nyenpan was admitted to the unsanitary John F. Kennedy (JFK) Hospital.
- Between June 5 and June 17, 1982, Dr. Lefton failed to provide consistent care, did not authorize Nyenpan's evacuation despite repeated requests and Dr. Van Reken's agreement, and did not communicate the serious medical emergency to the Office of Medical Services in Washington, D.C.
- Marilyn Wheeler, Nyenpan’s grandmother, contacted the State Department in Washington, D.C. on June 5 or 6, to arrange a receiving physician (Dr. Gerhardt Schroeter) for evacuation and relayed Dr. Schroeter’s urgent request to speak with the treating physician, but the State Department failed to relay this message promptly or fully.
- Nyenpan was eventually evacuated to the United States on June 17, 1982, by which time he had suffered severe, permanent neurological damage, blindness, and spasticity.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Linda Wheeler Tarpeh-Doe and Marilyn Wheeler filed an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Two claims alleging negligence arising outside the United States were dismissed by the District Court on October 25, 1988, as the FTCA does not authorize tort claims arising in a foreign country.
- A partial summary judgment granted to plaintiffs by the District Court, holding that the administrative resolution of plaintiffs' foreign claims violated due process, was reversed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (appellant: United States, appellee: Tarpeh-Doe).
- The remaining claims, alleging negligence occurring in the United States, proceeded to a trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia from November 26 to December 4, 1990.
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 Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception shield the United States from liability for negligent supervision when the State Department failed to oversee a Regional Medical Officer whose known professional deficiencies led to a dependent's severe injury, and where agency regulations established a duty to provide quality medical care and communicate during emergencies?
Opinions:
Majority - OBERDORFER, District Judge
Yes, the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception does not shield the United States from liability for negligent supervision when the State Department failed to oversee a Regional Medical Officer whose known professional deficiencies led to a dependent's severe injury, and where agency regulations established a duty to provide quality medical care and communicate during emergencies. The court held that while the decision to retain Dr. Lefton for a period, despite his known deficiencies, was protected by the discretionary function exception because it involved policy considerations (minimizing the gap in medical coverage), the subsequent failure to supervise Dr. Lefton more closely was not protected. The court reasoned that the failure to supervise, especially after inspectors alerted the defendants to Dr. Lefton's "flagrant derelictions," involved "no decision" and thus no permissible exercise of policy choice. This conduct was akin to a failure to follow specific directions or perform a routine duty, rather than a policy-based judgment. The court further found that the State Department owed a duty of care to Linda and Nyenpan, derived from its voluntary assumption of duty, a special employer-employee relationship, and the explicit promises in its Uniform State/AID/USIA Regulations to provide "the best possible medical care" and "to be alert to any medical and health problems of employees and their dependents and to take appropriate action promptly." This duty was heightened by actual notice of Dr. Lefton’s unavailability and past refusal to respond to serious medical situations. The court found a breach of this duty in the State Department's negligent supervision of Dr. Lefton, which included failing to direct him to be more available, imposing additional reporting requirements, or creating a plan for medical emergencies. Dr. Lefton's numerous negligent acts and omissions—including failing to provide adequate prenatal/postnatal care, referring Nyenpan to an unfamiliar, unsanitary hospital against parental objections, and not communicating the critical situation to Washington—were found to be proximately caused by the government's negligent supervision. The court cited the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213, noting that the defendants "permitted, or failed to prevent, negligent or other tortious conduct by persons... under [their] control." The defendants' failure to supervise created uncertainty as to whether Nyenpan would have recovered, and such uncertainty does not provide a defense against proximate cause. Other claims (failure to inform of evacuation benefits, failure to relay Dr. Schroeter's message, incorrect lab test) were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of breach or causation.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the bounds of the Federal Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception. It emphasizes that while high-level policy decisions may be protected, the government's subsequent failure to act or supervise, especially when regulations mandate specific conduct or when known risks are unaddressed without policy justification, may still lead to liability. The ruling reinforces that the government can incur a heightened duty of care through its own regulations and promises, particularly in an employer-employee context in hazardous overseas environments. This distinction between discretionary policy choice and non-discretionary operational negligence is crucial for future claims challenging governmental inaction or inadequate oversight.
