Belton v. United States
3:15-cv-01456
D.S.C.Nov 5, 2015Background
- Plaintiff David C. Belton sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries from a surgical ablation at the Dorn VA Medical Center, alleging medical malpractice and failures in informed consent.
- The original complaint did not name specific VA employees; the administrative SF-95 identified Drs. Mouratev and King (only Dr. King was tied to the surgery).
- The United States moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) arguing the surgeons identified (Dr. King, later Dr. Savoca in the proposed amendment) were contractors, not federal employees, supported by VA HR declarations.
- Plaintiff filed a proposed amended complaint alleging negligence by VA doctors (naming Dr. Savoca as the surgeon) and argued the administrative notice was adequate; the government countered that Savoca was not a federal employee and the SF-95 failed to permit agency investigation.
- The court initially dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied leave to amend as futile, but Plaintiff moved under Rule 59(e) to alter that judgment.
- On reconsideration, the court vacated its prior dismissal, granted leave to amend, and held the 12(b)(1) motion in abeyance to permit 30 days of limited discovery on whether the SF-95 provided adequate notice to the VA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint/allegations invoke FTCA jurisdiction by alleging torts of federal employees | Belton contends his proposed amendment alleges negligence by VA doctors (employees), so FTCA jurisdiction exists | U.S. argues the acts were by non-employee contractors (Dr. King/Dr. Savoca), so FTCA does not waive immunity | Court: Amendment sufficiently alleges claims against VA employees; jurisdictional dismissal not yet appropriate and 12(b)(1) held in abeyance for discovery |
| Whether leave to amend was futile | Belton: amendment cures jurisdictional defect by alleging misconduct by VA doctors (not contractors) | U.S.: amendment is futile because the named physicians are not federal employees and SF-95 was inadequate | Court: Amendment not futile; leave to amend granted |
| Adequacy of administrative notice (SF-95) to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) | Belton: SF-95 provided sufficient factual notice; plaintiff need not plead specific provider names in federal court complaint | U.S.: SF-95 did not align with the proposed amended complaint and failed to allow the VA to investigate | Court: Adequacy unresolved; limited discovery ordered to determine whether the SF-95 enabled VA investigation; resolution deferred |
| Standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) | Belton: Court misapprehended proposed amendment and should correct clear error/manifest injustice | U.S.: implicit opposition; no intervening law or new evidence | Court: Applied Rule 59(e) standards and found reconsideration warranted to correct its earlier conclusion; relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1998) (reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy used sparingly)
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (definition of "clearly erroneous" for reviewing factual findings)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (where two permissible views of evidence exist, factfinder's choice is not clearly erroneous)
- Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 1995) (plaintiff bears burden to prove subject-matter jurisdiction in response to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion)
- Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076 (4th Cir. 1993) (Rule 59(e) motion requires more than mere disagreement with the court's order)