¶1Judith S. Feigin, Washington, D. C. (Carla A. Hills, Asst. Atty. Gen., Victor R. Ortega, U. S. Atty., Robert E. Kopp, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendants-appellants.
¶2*1364Louis S. Marjon, Albuquerque, N. M. (James A. Toulouse, Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for plaintiff s-appel-lees.
¶3Before HILL and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,* District Judge.
¶6This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying , the government’s motion to dismiss a serviceman’s suit for injuries under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).1
¶7Appellees are Thomas Harten and his wife, Laurie. In 1971; Thomas, on active duty in the United States Armed Forces, underwent an elective vasectomy operation at Sandia Base, New Mexico. He was then provided with an analysis report indicating he was sterile. Subsequently, Laurie became pregnant and bore a child. The Hartens then brought this action under the Act, in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, against the military medical personnel involved in the operation and the United States. The complaint alleged the operation had been negligently performed and that the Hartens had negligently been provided with an inaccurate analysis report. Additionally, the complaint requested $50,000 for the necessary costs of raising and maintaining the child to the age of eighteen.
¶8The government moved to dismiss the suit on jurisdictional grounds. The trial court found that appellees had not exhausted their administrative remedies, and dismissed the suit without prejudice. Appellees then filed a motion for reconsideration, and stated that an administrative claim had been filed with and disapproved by the United States Army Claims Service. The motion further stated that appellees’ counsel had inadvertently neglected to submit the claim to the court. The trial court vacated its order dismissing the suit and allowed the parties two months to file additional authorities concerning the government’s motion to dismiss.
¶9The government’s motion placed primary emphasis on the doctrine announced in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S.Ct. 153, 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950), that “[t]he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.” The trial court found that a vasectomy operation was not “incident to service” and denied the government’s motion, but stated that an immediate appeal could be taken because the order involved a “controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.”
¶10The question presented by this appeal appears to be one of first impression in the Tenth Circuit.2
¶11*1365Whether a serviceman’s injury arises out of activity “incident to service” depends on whether it stems from an official military relationship between the negligent person and the serviceman. In other words, it depends on the claimant's “status” at the time of the injury. See, e. g., Henning v. United States, 446 F.2d 774 (3rd Cir. 1971), cert. den’d, 404 U.S. 1016, 92 S.Ct. 676, 30 L.Ed.2d 664.
¶12Thus, if a claimant is on leave,3 or on inactive status at the time of the injury,4 or if the injury is not the product of a military relationship,5 suit under the Act may be allowed.
¶13On the other hand, when a serviceman on active duty sustains an injury stemming from the military relationship, courts consistently have denied recovery under the Act.6 Surgery, whether elective or required, is “incident to service” when performed upon a serviceman on active duty because the serviceman is taking advantage of medical privileges granted only to military personnel. Herreman v. United States, 476 F.2d 234 (7th Cir. 1973). A ease in point is Lowe v. United States, 440 F.2d 452, 453 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. den’d, 404 U.S. 833, 92 S.Ct. 83, 30 L.Ed.2d 64, where a serviceman on active duty underwent elective surgerv. In affirming the dismissal of the action the appellate court stated:
[I]t is obvious that the injured man could not have been admitted, and would not have been admitted, to the Naval Hospital except for his military status. He was there treated by Naval medical personnel solely because of that status. It inescapably follows that whatever happened to him in that hospital and during the course of that treatment had to be “in the course of activity incident to service.”
¶14We believe Harten’s injuries were sustained in the course of activity incident to service and that a suit thereon cannot be maintained under the Act. The trial court’s order denying the government’s motion to dismiss is therefore reversed.