COOPER V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
569 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. 2010)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Cooper (P) appealed a summary judgment because the Circuit Court held
that the Act only allows recovery for pecuniary damages and not the nonpecuniary damages P
asked for in his complaint.
FACTS: P was a pilot with HIV diagnosed in 1985. The FAA (D) did not issue medical
certificates to individuals with HIV who were taking antiretroviral medications. P grounded
himself and chose not to renew his medical certificate. In 1994 P applied for and received a
medical certificate from D, but without disclosing that he had HIV or was taking
antiretroviral medication. Cooper renewed his medical certificate again in 1998, 2000, 2002,
and 2004, each time knowingly withholding required information about his medical condition.
In August 1995, P applied to the SSA for long-term disability benefits under Social
Security. P disclosed his status to SSA because the information was to be kept confidential.
In November 2003, the DOT-OIG sent the SSA-OIG information relating to approximately 45,000
pilots in Northern California, consisting of the pilots' names, dates of birth, social
security numbers, and genders. In April 2004, the SSA-OIG provided the DOT-OIG with SSA
information on each pilot who was drawing benefits. Ps medical file was acquired from the
FAA, which revealed that P had never disclosed his HIV to the FAA. The FAA Flight Surgeons
concluded that the FAA would not have issued P an unrestricted medical certificate had it
known of his HIV. P was indicted on three counts of making false statements to a government
agency. P pleaded guilty to one count of making and delivering a false official writing, a
misdemeanor, and was sentenced to two years of probation and fined $1,000. P filed a lawsuit
and alleged that the FAA, DOT, and SSA willfully or intentionally violated the Act by
conducting their interagency exchange of his records. This unlawful disclosure caused him
'to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, fear of social ostracism, and other
severe emotional distress.' The district court found the term 'actual damages' to be
ambiguous, and construed the waiver of sovereign immunity strictly in favor of the
Government, it ruled against P, holding that due to the strictly nonpecuniary nature of his
damages, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to his having suffered actual
damages under the Act. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment