Duplan v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an individual's status as a government employee for the purpose of the FTCA is a question of law
• holding that a physician was an independent contractor despite being subject to hospital quality control regulations, record-keeping requirements, dress code, and office-hours
• recognizing that “as a general rule, a premature ‘complaint cannot be cured through amendment’” but construing an amended complaint “as instituting a new action” anyway, based on equitable considerations (citing Sparrow v. USPS, 825 F. Supp. 252, 255 (E.D. Cal. 1993)
• stating that the government requiring a contract doctor to “meet minimum qualifications” and conducting reviews of the doctor’s performance fails to establish an employer-employee relationship
• concluding doctor at Air Force clinic was not a government employee but rather the employee of Med-National who contracted with the government to provide medical services at the clinic because (1
• holding exhaustion requirement, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, cannot be cured in an amended complaint as it “would render the exhaustion requirement meaningless and impose an unnecessary burden on the judicial system”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).