Willie Thompson v. United States of America and Mr. J. F. Koyle
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Willard Wooten v. United States of America (6th Cir. 1987)
- RODRIGUEZ-RABIN v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 2025)
- Miller v. United States (District Court, E.D. Texas 2024)
- (PC) Donaldson v. Garland (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2022)
- (PC) Van Gessel v. Moore (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2021)
- Withberto Velazquez v. United States (5th Cir. 2020)
- Gardner v. United States (District Court, D. Maryland 2017)
- Walker v. Reese (5th Cir. 2010)
- Cooleen v. Lamanna (3d Cir. 2007)
- Crowell v. United States (9th Cir. 2004)
- Ramirez v. Duteil (5th Cir. 2002)
- Charles M. Vander v. United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons, Western Regional Office United States of America (9th Cir. 2001)
- Scott v. Reno (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1995)
- Betty D. McCall v. United States (6th Cir. 1990)
- Otis F. Aston v. United States (5th Cir. 1980)
- Dr. Thomas C. Sturgeon v. Federal Prison Industries, Attorney General, United States of America (8th Cir. 1979)
- Saladino v. Federal Prison Industries (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This appeal comes to us from the district court’s dismissal of a federal prisoner’s claim for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C., §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. Finding no error in the district court’s ruling, we affirm.
According to the complaint and exhibits filed below, on November 3, 1971 *193 Willie Thompson, who was then an inmate of a United States penitentiary, sustained a work-related back injury while employed by the Federal Prison Industries. He was subsequently hospitalized, where he alleges his injury was aggravated as a result of negligence and malpractice on the part of one of the prison hospital’s employees. Thompson’s claim filed below sought $250,000 damages against the United States due to the wrongful conduct of its employee.
Under the circumstances of this case, the district court correctly dismissed the suit, since it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appellant’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It is well established that the inmate accident compensation system as set forth in 18 U.S. C., § 4126 is the exclusive means of recovery for a prison-employee’s work-related injuries, United States v. Demko, 1966, 385 U.S. 149, 87 S.Ct. 382, 17 L.Ed.2d 258; Wooten v. United States, 5 Cir., 1971, 437 F.2d 79; United States v. Cole, 5 Cir., 1967, 376 F.2d 848. Despite the appellant’s allegation that the negligence of the hospital worker occasioned further injuries, for which he seeks damages, he is barred from litigating the matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act since the cause of his original injury was work-related and compensable under 18 U.S.C., § 4126, Jewell v. United States, N.D.Ga., 1967, 274 F. Supp. 381.
It should also be noted that the appellant’s claim under 28 U.S.C., § 2671 was filed almost immediately after the district court denied his action seeking compensation under 18 U.S.C., § 4126. This Court recently vacated that ruling and remanded the cause for further proceedings 'on the claim, Thompson v. United States, 5 Cir., 1974, 492 F.2d 1082 [1974]. Thus it is obvious that the appellant has this avenue of redress available to him.
The judgment of the district court dismissing the appellant’s action under the Federal Tort Claims Act is therefore
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.