Ingram v. Faruque

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction “can take the form of either a ‘facial’ or a ‘factual’ attack”
• stating that § 7316 “applies the remedy available against the United States under the FTCA to damages arising from the provision of medical services by health care employees of the VA” (cleaned up)
• noting Bivens recognized “an implied private action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen’s constitutional rights”
• holding VA police to be supporting personnel under the statute
• affirming dismissal of Bivens claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where FTCA provided exclusive remedy pursuant to the VA Immunity statute, which mirrored language of § 233(a)
• “[W]e hold that the text of the VA Immunity Statute creates an exclusive remedy that precludes a Bivens claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).