Cooper v. Federal Aviation Administration

569 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. 2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was a pilot with HIV diagnosed in 1985. The FAA (D) did not issue medical certificates to individuals with HIV who were taking antiretroviral medications. P grounded himself and chose not to renew his medical certificate. In 1994 P applied for and received a medical certificate from D, but without disclosing that he had HIV or was taking antiretroviral medication. Cooper renewed his medical certificate again in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004, each time knowingly withholding required information about his medical condition. In August 1995, P applied to the SSA for long-term disability benefits under Social Security. P disclosed his status to SSA because the information was to be kept confidential. In November 2003, the DOT-OIG sent the SSA-OIG information relating to approximately 45,000 pilots in Northern California, consisting of the pilots' names, dates of birth, social security numbers, and genders. In April 2004, the SSA-OIG provided the DOT-OIG with SSA information on each pilot who was drawing benefits. Ps medical file was acquired from the FAA, which revealed that P had never disclosed his HIV to the FAA. The FAA Flight Surgeons concluded that the FAA would not have issued P an unrestricted medical certificate had it known of his HIV. P was indicted on three counts of making false statements to a government agency. P pleaded guilty to one count of making and delivering a false official writing, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced to two years of probation and fined $1,000. P filed a lawsuit and alleged that the FAA, DOT, and SSA willfully or intentionally violated the Act by conducting their interagency exchange of his records. This unlawful disclosure caused him 'to suffer humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, fear of social ostracism, and other severe emotional distress.' The district court found the term 'actual damages' to be ambiguous, and construed the waiver of sovereign immunity strictly in favor of the Government, it ruled against P, holding that due to the strictly nonpecuniary nature of his damages, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to his having suffered actual damages under the Act. P appealed.