Legal Opinion

Hope v. Seahorse, Inc.

District Court, S.D. Texas

Decided December 31, 1986No. Civ. A. H-81-3297PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

CARL O. BUE, Jr., District Judge.

I. Introduction

This is a medical malpractice action instituted against the United States by virtue of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 (Supp.1976 and Supp.1981). The United States, in administering medical treatment to Captain Tom Hope pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 249, had a duty to provide proper medical diagnosis and treatment as would have been provided by any other health care provider in the State of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that a breach of that duty gives rise to the cause of action at bar.

2Cases cited50 opinions

  1. Richards v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. United States v. MunizSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Bowles v. BourdonTexas Supreme Court · 1949
  4. Sanchez v. SchindlerTexas Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Hart v. Van ZandtTexas Supreme Court · 1965

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Franklin v. BlackmoreCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
  2. Klairmont v. Gainsboro Restaurant, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2013
  3. Larsen v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1988
  4. Franklin v. BlackmoreCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API