# Melo v. Hafer

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · February 15, 1994 · 13 F.3d 736

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6929378

## Case

- **Full name:** James C. MELO, Jr. Louis Jurik Donald Ruggerio Carol Danowitz James Dicosimo Lucille Russell Walter W. Speelman John Weikel v. Barbara HAFER and James J. West, Esquire, James J. West, Esquire, and The United States
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** February 15, 1994
- **Citations:** 13 F.3d 736; 1994 WL 4635
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Greenberg, Roth, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 74 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6929378

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(3)—which states a federal employee may “petition the court to find and certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment”—means that a court should “conduct an evidentiary hearing and make -4- all findings necessary”…
- holding that “if there is a genuine issue of fact material to the scope of employment question, the district court should permit discovery and conduct a hearing, if necessary” (emphasis added)
- holding that “Congress intended federal employees to have a right to a court determination of all aspects of the immunity issue prior to trial”
- stating that “evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient 14 to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment”
- holding plaintiff must establish through medical evidence that delay in treatment resulted in physical injury

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
February 15, 1994
Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing filed by appel-lees in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit iii regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in bane, the petition for rehearing is denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6929378. Public record. Not legal advice.