Friedenberg v. Lane County

Under 42 U.S.C. §233(a), Public Health Service employees are granted immunity from claims arising out of their performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” Conduct qualifies as a “related function[,]” when it is "related" to the provision of medical services.

Lorre Sanford and decedents’ (collectively “Plaintiffs”) negligence and wrongful death action was heard in federal court. The district court held that Lane County Mental Health employees (“Defendants”) were not entitled to immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 233. The judge remanded the action back to state court, where it was originally filed. Defendants appeal and argue that they were entitled to § 233 immunity and that Defendant’s conduct fell outside of the grant activities under 28 U.S.C. § 330. Regarding § 233 jurisdiction Plaintiffs argued that § 233 immunity only applies when the injury occurs during medical treatment to the patient. Under 42 U.S.C. § 233(a), Public Health Service employees are granted immunity from claims arising out of their performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” (emphasis added) The Court held that Defendants’ conduct qualifies as a “related function[,]” because the alleged conduct was "related" to the provision of medical services. Plaintiffs argued that the tortious conduct does not relate to Defendants’ grant-supported activity under § 330.  Specifically, Plaintiffs argued Defendants failed to mention the program in its grant application and therefore activities under the program were not protected. Under 42 C.F.R § 6.6, “only acts and omissions related to the grant-supported activity of entities are covered[.]” (emphasis added) The Court held that Defendants’ tortious conduct fell within the scope of their § 330 grant, because the “expressed purposes of the program and the federally funded activities are similar.” Therefore, the acts and omissions in this case “relate to” the grant-supported activity.  Reversed and Remanded.