Friedenberg v. Lane County, __ F.4th __, No. 21–35078, 2023 WL 3558224 (9th Cir. May 19, 2023)
A municipal court referred Michael Bryant to a jail diversion program (as a condition of probation) and ordered him to report to Lane County Mental Health (LCMH) for treatment. But Bryant stopped taking his medications, leading to a psychotic break during which he killed two people and maimed another. The crime victims (or their estates) sued Lane County, LCMH, and its employees, alleging negligence and wrongful death claims stemming from the defendants’ failure to report Bryant’s probation violations to the court, which would have incarcerated him. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA), 42 U.S.C. § 233. The defendants argued that, because the FSHCAA deems them Public Health Service (PHS) employees, the Federal Tort Claims Act requires the United States to be substituted in their place as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs moved to remand on grounds the district court lacked jurisdiction under the FSHCAA. The district court granted the remand motion, ruling that, as “deemed” PHS employees (rather than actual PHS employees), the defendants were not entitled to § 233 immunity because plaintiffs were not LCMH patients when they suffered injury. Defendants appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed and directed the district court to substitute the United States as the sole defendant. The court explained that Congress enacted the FSHCAA to prevent community health centers serving underprivileged populations from having to use their federal funds to purchase costly medical malpractice insurance. To further this objective, Congress extended the absolute immunity “provided to actual PHS employees in § 233(a) to ‘deemed’ PHS employees under § 233(g).” Moreover, § 233 immunity does not turn on who brings a claim, but rather whether the claim arose out of the defendants’ performance of medical, dental, surgical, or related services—regardless whether the injured plaintiff was a patient. And while Congress’s concerns regarding medical malpractice insurance premiums were the driving force behind enactment of FSHCAA, Congress elected not to limit § 233 immunity to malpractice claims when it could have done so. Finally, the court held that the defendants’ alleged failure to notify the municipal court of the probation violations was a “‘related function’” under § 233, bringing it within the scope of the statutory immunity, because their duty to report Bryant’s violations and his potential threat to public safety was tied to their status as medical health professionals.
Thomas Watson
htwatson@horvitzlevy.com
Horvitz & Levy LLP
3601 W. Olive Ave., 8th Fl.
Burbank, CA 91505
818.995.0800 (Office-Main)
818.995-5813 (Office-Direct)
818.601.2765 (Cell)
horvitzlevy.com
