PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00793R000200030002-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 22, 2002
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: October 31, 1973
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Rose 2003/02/27: CIA-RDP75-00793R c 00030002-3
OGC 73-2049
31 October 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Medical Services
SUBJECT Professional Liability
1. You have requested our views concerning the discussion of
professional liability and the Federal Tort Claims Act in the 1969 HEW
publication, An Administrative Guide for Federal Occupational Health
Units by Dr. Arvo B. Ederma, returned herewith. You referred
also to our comments to you in the same area in our memorandum
of 19 October 1971 (OGC 71-1527).
2. As Dr. Ederma notes, even in those areas where personal
liability on the part of the government employee exists, generally the
claims are brought against the government rather than the employee
personally. In fact, the expert in the Department of Justice advises
that the Department has been able to persuade those claimants who
have intended to proceed against employees to forego that right and
to go forward with claims or lawsuits against the government only.
For practical purposes therefore, it would seem that the government
physician is well protected in this area. But it is also true, as
Dr. Ederma points out, that claims arising outside the United States
are not covered by the Tort Claims Act. Further, there could be
a situation in which a claimant would elect to accept benefits available
under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, thereby forfeiting
his right to sue the government but not losing his right to sue the
physician. Whether these risks and the assistance and protection
which could be expected to be forthcoming from the Agency in
the event of a claim against an Agency physician warrant the purchase
of malpractice insurance by your staff physicians would be a matter
for judgment and decision by the individual physician.
3. In this connection, you will recall that in our memorandum of
19 October 1971 (OGC 71-1527) we suggested that in the final analysis
the controlling factor in these cases likely would be the Agency's
attitude. Mr. Houston in fact regarded it as inconceivable that a staff
Approved For Release 2003/02/27 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000200030002-3
 Approved For Rose 2003/02/27: CIA-RDP75-00793R 00030002-3
physician in the Agency, sued because of an action taken by him
in the interest of the Agency, would not be fully backed and held
harmless by the Agency. I know of no actions by the Agency
contrary to the views expressed by Mr. Houston and indeed recent
developments, I believe, fully support his statement. But it also
occurs to me that any judgment or estimate of the attitude of the
Agency in the future is at best a prediction. All concerned are
familiar with the Agency's attitude and performance over the years
as management has changed hands from time to time, but it would
seem speculative to attempt to predict the attitudes and views of
those who will be in charge of the Agency at some future date.
TINTL
TINTL
OGCJI cav
Orig: - Addse
/1 - OGC Subj: MEDICAL
1 -0 SIGNER
1 - Chrono
Approved For Release 2003/02/27 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000200030002-3
STATINTL