Orlikow v. U.S.
Cite as 682 F.S. 77 (D.D.C. 1988)


81

action were patients of Dr. Cameron during
the grant period. Each was subjected to at least one aspect of the procedure outlined in the application grant. It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not have knowledge of the alleged experimental nature of Dr. Cameron's techniques, however, various forms of consent were given for treatment. On April 12, 1960, after receiving the final grant payment, Dr. Cameron sent a letter to the SIHE, thanking the organization for its assistance and stating that "[t]he help which we have received front your Society during the last several years has been
invaluable, and all of us who are engaged in this investigation have a considerable sense
of indebtedness to your organization."

Defendant's Motion Exhibit 17. The CIA funding period had ended although Dr.
Cameron continued his work.



11. DISCRETIONARY FUNCTION
Defendant asserts, inter alia, that this case must he dismissed because each of the
actions alleged are protected by the discretionary function exception under the FTCA. 28 U.S.C. 2680(a). The issue is jurisdictional. The applicable two pronged clause provides that the Act shall not apply to:
Any claim based upon an act or omission
of an employee of the Government exer-
cising due care, in the execution of a
statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or
based upon the exercise or performance
or the failure to exercise or perforn, a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.

28 U.S.C. 2680(a) (emphasis added).

The discretionary function exception, referred to in the second clause of section 2680(a) "marks the boundary between Congress' willingness to impose tort liability upon the United States and its desire to protect certain governmental activities from exposure to suit by private individuals." United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea, Rio Granden.5e (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 808, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2762, 81 I,.Ed.2d 660 (1984)@ Congress failed to define "discretionary function". The Courts are thereby saddled with the task of giving form to this enigmatic term. The seminal cases that have evolved on the issue assist in the process. Dalehite V. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 73 S.Ct. 956, 97 L.Ed. 1427 (1956) and Varig Airlines, su-pro, are the two leading Supreme Court cases construing the discretionary function.


11, 21 Plaintiffs' complaint states three counts: (1) negligent supervision and control of employees who chose to fund Dr. Cameron, (2) negligent funding of an inherently dangerous activity, is, human experimentation, and (3) which can be read into the second count, asserts liability for CIA funding of medical malpractice. The second and third count allege extraordinary and malevolent acts which by their very nature are beyond any reasonable discretion that Congress might have envisioned when creating the discretionary exception. See Glickman v. United States, 626 F.Supp. 171, 175 (S.D.N.Y.1985).5 When a decision is made to conduct intelligence op-erations bv methods which are unconstitutional or egregious, it is lacking in statutory or regulatory authority. Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General of the United States, 642 F.Supp. 1357, 1417 (S.D. N.Y.1986). The Court is mindful that an allegation that the employee has ignored any agency practice does not automatically take an activity outside of the discretionary function. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. United States, 800 F.2d 1187, 1197, n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1986). Yet, from another perspective, defendant admits that after the Olson tragedy future projects were to be handled with proper medical guidance. Where the "government official in performing his statutory duties must act without

footnote 5: Glickman involves alleged acts by the same officials cited in the case at bar, Plaintiff, an American citizen in Paris. alleged that Gottlieb and Hclms gave him a drink, which they had secretly laced with LSD. Additionally, after ingesting the drink he was taken to a hospital and adminsitered electroshock treatment.

next page

back

beginning