811-12. Dismissing the plaintiffs’ battery claim, the court wrote: Section 1089(e) of the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act seemingly permits a plaintiff to sue the federal government for a claim arising out of assault and battery. The legislative history of the Act indicates, however, that in passing the Act, Congress simply intended that a claimant be denied the opportunity to proceed individually against a federal medical employee for an assault and battery claim. Congress apparently recognized that a claimant could successfully plead that a negligent or wrongful act constituted assault and battery in order to proceed against the individual employee. In the section-by-section analysis of the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act, the Senate report states: “In short, subsection (e) makes the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for any action, including assault and battery, that could be characterized as malpractice.” The effect of this statutory section, then, was not to provide a claimant a right to sue either the government or the individual physician for personal liability as Plaintiffs argue. Rather, it functioned as an abrogation of a claimant’s prior right to sue the physician personally. Therefore, Plaintiffs are limited to pro- ceeding against the government for their assault and battery claim. Moreover, since the United States has not waived its
811-12. Dismissing the plaintiffs’ battery claim, the court wrote: Section 1089(e) of the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act seemingly permits a plaintiff to sue the federal government for a claim arising out of assault and battery. The legislative history of the Act indicates, however, that in passing the Act, Congress simply intended that a claimant be denied the opportunity to proceed individually against a federal medical employee for an assault and battery claim. Congress apparently recognized that a claimant could successfully plead that a negligent or wrongful act constituted assault and battery in order to proceed against the individual employee. In the section-by-section analysis of the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act, the Senate report states: “In short, subsection (e) makes the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for any action, including assault and battery, that could be characterized as malpractice.” The effect of this statutory section, then, was not to provide a claimant a right to sue either the government or the individual physician for personal liability as Plaintiffs argue. Rather, it functioned as an abrogation of a claimant’s prior right to sue the physician personally. Therefore, Plaintiffs are limited to pro- ceeding against the government for their assault and battery claim. Moreover, since the United States has not waived its