Navigating the Legal Barriers That Limit Military Personal Injury Claims
When a service member is injured through the negligence of the military or its personnel, the instinct is to seek the same legal accountability that any civilian would pursue after being harmed through someone else’s carelessness. But the military legal landscape contains significant barriers that do not exist in civilian law — most notably the Feres Doctrine, a judicially created rule that has blocked service members from suing the federal government for injuries that arise from military service for more than seven decades. Understanding these barriers, and identifying every avenue that remains open despite them, requires an attorney with deep familiarity with both military and federal law.
At Corrao & Robles Law, attorney Nelson Robles represents service members and veterans navigating the complex legal landscape surrounding the Feres Doctrine and related restrictions on military personal injury claims throughout the East Coast and in applicable federal matters. As a Judge Advocate General (JAG), he brings firsthand knowledge of how these legal barriers operate and where legitimate avenues for relief may still exist.
What Is the Feres Doctrine?
The Feres Doctrine takes its name from the Supreme Court’s 1950 decision in Feres v. United States, in which the Court held that the federal government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained by service members that arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service. In plain terms, this means that a service member generally cannot sue the United States for negligence — including medical malpractice by military physicians, injuries caused by defective military equipment, or harm resulting from the negligent acts of fellow service members — when those injuries occurred in a military context.
The rationale offered by the Court in Feres and subsequent decisions has centered on concerns about military discipline, the unique nature of the military relationship, and the existence of alternative compensation systems for injured service members. Critics have long argued that the doctrine is overly broad, unjust, and produces outcomes that would never be tolerated in the civilian context — a position that has gained increasing traction in recent years.
What is a Bar on Post?
A bar on post — sometimes referred to as a barment — is an administrative action taken by a military installation commander that prohibits a specific individual from entering or remaining on a military installation. While bars on post can be issued against civilians, contractors, veterans, and family members for a range of reasons, they carry significant practical consequences for those who depend on access to the installation for employment, housing, medical care, commissary and exchange privileges, or other services.
A bar on post is an administrative rather than criminal action, but it can be appealed and challenged through appropriate channels. The basis for the bar, the procedural steps followed by the command, and the impact on the affected individual are all relevant to whether the action can be successfully challenged or modified.
The Scope and Limits of the Feres Doctrine
While the Feres Doctrine presents a significant barrier to military personal injury claims, it is not absolute. Courts have grappled with its application across a wide range of circumstances, and the boundaries of the doctrine are not always clearly defined. Understanding where Feres applies and where it does not requires careful analysis of the specific facts of each situation.
Circumstances Where Feres May Not Apply
The Feres Doctrine generally does not bar claims by civilian family members of service members who are independently injured through military negligence. It also does not apply to injuries sustained by veterans after separation from service, claims brought by National Guard members injured during non-federal duty, or certain claims arising from conduct that courts have determined falls outside the scope of activity incident to service. Carefully analyzing whether the specific circumstances of an injury bring it within or outside the Feres bar is an essential first step in evaluating potential claims.
Recent Legislative Developments
Congress has shown increasing willingness to address the perceived injustices of the Feres Doctrine in recent years. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 included a provision allowing active duty service members to file administrative claims directly with the military for medical malpractice injuries, creating a limited avenue for compensation that did not previously exist. While this reform does not eliminate the Feres bar entirely, it represents a significant development for service members harmed by military medical negligence and opens a pathway to compensation that experienced legal counsel can help navigate.
Alternative Avenues for Relief
Even when the Feres Doctrine forecloses a direct tort claim against the government, other avenues for relief may remain available depending on the circumstances of the injury.
Military Claims Act
The Military Claims Act provides a mechanism for service members and their families to file administrative claims for certain categories of injury and property damage. While it does not provide the same scope of recovery as a civil lawsuit, it represents an important alternative for those whose claims are barred under Feres.
Third-Party Liability Claims
When a service member’s injury involves negligence by a party other than the military itself — such as a civilian contractor, a manufacturer of defective equipment, or a civilian healthcare provider — a Feres bar against the government does not necessarily prevent a claim against that third party. Identifying whether any non-government actors contributed to the injury is an important part of evaluating the full scope of available options.
VA Disability Benefits
Service members injured during their military service may be entitled to VA disability compensation regardless of whether a tort claim is available. Ensuring that service-connected injuries are properly documented and that disability claims are filed and pursued effectively is an important parallel track in any case involving military injury.
Challenging a Bar on Post
A bar on post can be challenged through an administrative appeal to the installation commander or higher authority. A successful challenge requires demonstrating that the bar was issued without adequate procedural basis, that the stated reasons for the bar are factually unsupported, or that the bar is disproportionate to the circumstances that gave rise to it. The practical consequences of a bar — particularly for veterans who rely on installation access for medical care or other benefits — make prompt and effective legal response important.
When to Speak With a Feres Doctrine Attorney
Contact an attorney as soon as possible if any of the following apply:
Work With Corrao & Robles Law
The Feres Doctrine and related military legal barriers can feel like an insurmountable wall between injured service members and the accountability they deserve. Attorney Nelson Robles understands these barriers from the inside and works to identify every legitimate avenue for relief available to each client, ensuring that no option is overlooked and no right goes unasserted.
Corrao & Robles Law represents service members and veterans navigating Feres Doctrine issues and bar on post matters throughout the East Coast and in applicable federal matters, and is prepared to discuss your situation in a confidential consultation.