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

Mrs. David Orlikow, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
UNITED STATES of America,
Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 80-3163.
United States District Court,
District of Columbia.
Jan. 19, 1988.
Suit was filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging negligence by the Central Intelligence Agency in supervision and control over its employees, reckless funding of hazardous experiments on human subjects, and funding of medical malpractice. On motion of the United States for summary judgment, the District Court, John Garrett Penn, J., held that: (1) alleged conduct of the CIA in connection with alleged funding of research experiments by plaintiffs' psychiatrist was not within the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act; (2) there were issues of fact precluding summary judgment as to whether certain publications concerning CIA activities provided notice sufficient to trigger statute of limitations under discovery to (3) with respect to a particular plaintiff; there was a question of fact as to whether, because of disorder allegedly caused by psychiatrist's "experiment," such plaintiff was actually able to "know" of CIA involvement when he first heard thereof; (4) one plaintiff's claim was barred by limitations; (5) claims did not "arise in a foreign country" so as to be barred under the Tort Claims Act, though plaintiffs were injured in Canada; and (6) valid claims of negligence were asserted.
Motion granted in part and denied in part.
1. United States 78(12)
Alleged conduct of the CIA in negligently funding human experimentation and medical malpractice was beyond the authority of the agency and not within the discretionary function of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
1346, 2680(a).
2. United States 78(12)
When decision is made to conduct intelligence operations by methods which are unconstitutional or egregious, it is lacking statutory or regulatory authority and thus not within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, but allegation that employee has ignored any agency practice does not automatically take activity outside of the discretionary function exception. 28 U.S.C.A. 1346, 2680(a).
3. United States 78(12)
Claim that CIA negligently supervised employees who chose to fund research of psychiatrist who allegedly harmed plaintiffs was distinguishable from any policy decision in implementing plan to do brainwashing research, and alleged pure and simple acts of negligence not within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C.A. 1346, 2680(a).
4. United States 78(8)
Where claim alleges negligence by government official in failing to properly control or supervise another government employee, who in turn commits an intentional tort, negligence claim is barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act because it arises out of the intentional tort. 28 U.S.C.
A. 1346, 2671 et seq.
5. Limitation of Actions 95(l)
The diligence discovery rule which delays running of statute of limitations applicable to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies not only to concealment cases but also where a plaintiff demonstrates that his injury was inherently unknowable at the time he was injured. 28 U.S.C.A. 1346,
2401(b).
6. Limitation of Actions 95(l)
Psychiatrist's knowledge of patients' injury did not constitute accrual date of patients' claims where they were suing the United States for negligence by the CIA in secretly funding doctor who allegedly carried out experiments on unwitting human subjects, and not on a vicarious liability theory.. 28 U.S.C.A. 1.946, 2401(b)
28 U.S . C.A.

next page