A 1950s Supreme Court ruling that essentially protects the U.S. military from medical malpractice claims is being challenged by military families and veterans.
The ruling, known as the Feres Doctrine, puts injuries acquired as a result of medical error and malpractice on the same level as a battlefield wound.
The outcry against this ruling has resurfaced following the death a noncommissioned officer, whose death was caused after a nurse mistakenly inserted a breathing tube down his esophagus rather than his trachea.
The nurse's error caused the 25-year-old officer's brain to be deprived of oxygen, and three months later his family had to make the difficult decision to remove him from life support.
The young officer was hospitalized for what should have been a 'routine appendectomy' at a military medical facility in California.
The nurse who made the medical mistake admitted to her error and eventually gave up her license to practice in the State of California. The family of the deceased officer attempted to file a medical malpractice claim, but it was quickly denied due to the Feres Doctrine.
The family appealed the decision, but the 61-year-old doctrine must be overturned before any legal action in this case and other military medical malpractice cases can be considered.
Support for change the law has come from veterans groups and military officers, and one U.S. Supreme Court justice has criticized the law, stating that it deserves "the almost universal criticism it has received."
