Cassondra King v. United States, 3 F.4th 996

Rosemarie Ismail underwent a liver biopsy at the VA hospital and died the next day from a post-biopsy hepatic hematoma.
Susan Mullen was appointed personal representative (executor/administrator) of Ismail’s estate; within two years she submitted an administrative wrongful-death claim (Standard Form 95) to the VA seeking $2.5 million.
The VA denied Mullen’s administrative claim.
Cassondra King, an heir, filed an FTCA wrongful-death suit in federal court and moved to have Mullen appointed plaintiff ad litem to prosecute the claim for King.
The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing King had not personally exhausted her administrative remedies because Mullen, as personal representative, lacked state-law authority to present a wrongful-death claim on King’s behalf.
The district court dismissed; the Eighth Circuit reversed, holding Mullen’s presentation as personal representative satisfied the FTCA presentment requirement under DOJ regulations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether King’s FTCA claim was administratively exhausted when Mullen (personal representative) filed the SF-95 for wrongful death	Mullen’s SF-95, filed as personal representative, satisfied presentment for King’s claim	Because Mullen lacked Missouri-law authority to sue for beneficiaries, she could not present King’s claim and thus exhaustion failed	Reversed: Mullen’s presentation as executor/administrator satisfied the FTCA presentment requirement; jurisdiction exists
Interpretation of 28 C.F.R. §14.3(c): does the phrase “legally entitled to assert such a claim in accordance with applicable State law” limit executors/administrators or only “other person”	Read §14.3(c) to allow an executor/administrator to present a death claim regardless of whether state law authorizes that representative to sue	Read §14.3(c) to require anyone who presents a death claim (including an executor/administrator) be legally entitled under state law to assert it	Applied the last-antecedent rule: the limiting clause modifies only “other person,” so executors/administrators may present death claims under the regulation regardless of state-law capacity to sue

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (holding FTCA administrative presentment is a jurisdictional prerequisite)
Pleasant v. U.S. ex rel. Overton Brooks Veterans Admin. Hosp., 764 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (executor/administrator may file FTCA death notice even if not authorized under state law to sue)
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (principle of the last-antecedent rule in statutory interpretation)
Rollo-Carlson ex rel. Flackus-Carlson v. United States, 971 F.3d 768 (FTCA presentment is jurisdictional; courts must apply exhaustion requirement)
Molzof ex rel. Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301 (FTCA liability is generally determined by reference to state law)
Sullivan v. Carlisle, 851 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. banc 1993) (Missouri wrongful-death cause of action vests in survivors, not the estate’s personal representative)
Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (discussing agency settlement authority and the importance of presentment/exhaustion)