SHARON L. DE LANGE, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment below; holding that the communicated diagnosis was a representation. (Hall v. United States, 274 F. 2d 69 (10th Cir. 1959).) An incorrect representation is “misrepresentation” within the meaning of the statute (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2674 and 2680(h)), whether wilful or based upon negligence in ascertaining the facts represented. (United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696, 702, 81 S.Ct. 1294, 6 L.Ed. 2d 614 (1961).) Cf. Hungerford v. United States, 307 F. 2d 99, 102 (9th Cir. 1962). The appellant would not have undertaken to be examined, but for her employment. Her exclusive remedy is to seek relief for Workmen’s Compensation benefits. 5 U.S.C.A. § 8101 et seq.; § 8171-8173; and 33 U.S.C.A. § 901 et seq.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hicks v. United States, 511 F.2d 407 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
-
Rudolfo Ramirez v. United States, 567 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Matthews v. United States, 456 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1972)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Neustadt et ux., 366 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1961)
- Hungerford v. United States, 307 F.2d 99 (9th Cir. 1962)
- Hall v. United States, 274 F.2d 69 (10th Cir. 1959)