Barrett v. United States

Harold Blauer was treated for depression at a New York State psychiatric hospital (the hospital). Blauer died after being injected by Dr. Paul Hoch with a synthetic mescaline derivative supplied to the hospital by the US Army to test the derivative’s psychiatric effect on humans to determine its suitability as a chemical-warfare agent. The hospital was prohibited by contract from disclosing information about the army derivative. Blauer’s estate (the estate) (plaintiff) sued New York, arguing that the hospital’s negligence in injecting Blauer with a dangerous compound had led to Blauer’s death. David Marcus (defendant), the assistant attorney general of New York, discovered the army’s involvement and met with attorneys from the army and the federal government (the federal attorneys) (defendants). The federal attorneys objected to any disclosure of the army’s contract with the hospital or the experiment’s purpose as part of any litigation. The federal attorneys recommended moving the army’s contract with the hospital to another state so that it could not be subpoenaed. To hide the army’s involvement, Marcus repeatedly postponed the estate’s interview of the hospital’s doctor. The estate was never informed of the army’s role or the experimental nature of the injection that caused Blauer’s death. The estate settled for $15,000. At a hearing, Hoch testified that the administration of the mescaline derivative was not in accord with accepted medical practice, but Hoch falsely testified that the derivative was commonly used and had been used on Blauer for diagnostic purposes. After the army’s experimental mescaline program became public 20 years later, the estate sued the federal attorneys for covering up the army’s involvement in Blauer’s death. The estate claimed that New York had misled the estate during the original suit and failed to turn over documents that would have revealed the army’s role and alleged that the federal attorneys had counseled Hoch not to reveal the army’s role. The court rejected the federal attorneys’ claim of immunity from lawsuits involving acts taken as public officials. The federal attorneys appealed.