## Facts

- Robert Molzof, a veteran, underwent lung surgery at a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital in Wisconsin and was placed on a ventilator.
- Hospital personnel negligently allowed the ventilator tubing to become disconnected, causing irreversible brain damage and leaving Molzof permanently comatose.
- The VA agreed to provide free lifetime medical care, and Molzof’s wife was satisfied with the care he received.
- Through a guardian ad litem, Molzof sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) seeking damages for (1) supplemental medical care beyond VA-provided care, (2) future medical expenses, and (3) loss of enjoyment of life.
- The United States admitted negligence; during appellate proceedings Molzof died and his wife continued the action as personal representative.

## Issues

1. Whether the FTCA’s prohibition on “punitive damages,” 28 U.S.C. § 2674, bars damages for future medical expenses and loss of enjoyment of life on the theory that such awards would be “punitive” because they exceed the government’s actual outlays.
2. Whether “punitive damages” in § 2674 has its traditional common-law meaning or instead includes any damages “in excess of, or bearing no relation to, compensation.”
3. Whether noneconomic damages such as loss of enjoyment of life are categorically unavailable against the United States under the FTCA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded.
- “Punitive damages” in § 2674 refers only to damages that are punitive in the traditional common-law sense (aimed at punishment and deterrence and typically requiring intentional or egregious misconduct).
- Future medical expenses and loss-of-enjoyment-of-life damages are not barred merely because they could exceed the government’s expenditures or have a punitive effect.
- The United States may be liable for these items to the extent they are compensatory damages recoverable under the applicable state law.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FTCA, the United States is liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances,” except it is not liable for punitive damages. 28 U.S.C. § 2674.
- The FTCA’s “punitive damages” bar excludes only common-law punitive damages—awards whose purpose is to punish or deter and whose availability depends on proof of intentional or egregious misconduct.
- Courts may not recharacterize compensatory damages as “punitive” solely because the award exceeds the government’s out-of-pocket costs or seems excessive relative to reimbursement.
- State law generally determines the availability and measure of compensatory damages in FTCA suits, so long as the requested damages are not punitive in the technical sense.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the FTCA bars only traditional punitive damages, not compensatory damages that may be substantial or noneconomic; on remand, the lower courts were to determine under state law whether future medical expenses and loss of enjoyment of life were recoverable as compensatory damages.


Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (1992)