No. 18-460October Term 2018Decided May 20, 2019
Walter Daniel, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rebekah Daniel, Petitioner v. United States
The justices passed on this challenge to Feres, so the existing rule stayed in place in this case.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released May 20, 2019
- What it's about
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Question presented
1. Does the Feres doctrine bar service members, or their estates, from bringing claims for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act where the medical treatment did not involve any military exigencies, decisions, or considerations, and where the service member was not engaged in military duty or a military mission at the time of the injury or death? 2. Should Feres be overruled for medical malpractice claims brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act where the medical treatment did not involve any military exigencies, decisions, or considerations, and where the service member was not engaged in military duty or a military mission at the time of the injury or death?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Decision released May 20, 2019
- Area
Decided Supreme Court case
Briefing
What it's about
Walter Daniel asked the Supreme Court to revisit the Feres doctrine in a medical-malpractice case involving the death of Rebekah Daniel. On May 20, 2019, the Court declined review, so it did not decide those questions and left the Ninth Circuit's result in place.
Vote
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the lower-court decision in place. No vote count or opinion details are available in the prompt.
Impact
The Court's refusal to hear the case meant this petition did not change the rule that can block service members or their estates from suing under the Federal Tort Claims Act. For example, a service member treated at a military hospital may still face the same barrier in a similar malpractice claim.
What's next
The Supreme Court's involvement ended when it declined review. The Ninth Circuit's judgment remained in effect, and any change to Feres would have to come in a different case.
What was Walter Daniel asking the Supreme Court to do in this case?
He asked the Court to revisit Feres in a medical-malpractice case and let the suit proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Who is affected by the Court's refusal to hear Daniel's case?
Active-duty service members and their families are affected. In similar military medical-malpractice claims, lower courts can continue applying Feres to block damages suits.
What happened next after the Supreme Court acted on May 20, 2019?
Nothing further happened at the Supreme Court in this docket. The Ninth Circuit's judgment stayed in place because the justices declined review.
Decision
What the Court decided
The justices passed on this challenge to Feres, so the existing rule stayed in place in this case.
Impact
The Court's refusal to hear the case meant this petition did not change the rule that can block service members or their estates from suing under the Federal Tort Claims Act. For example, a service member treated at a military hospital may still face the same barrier in a similar malpractice claim.
Not official Court text.
Opinion documents
Documents
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 2, 2026
- Method
- Methodology