Catherine Low v. Patrick Donahoe
692 F. App'x 373
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Catherine Low slipped on ice outside a post office and notified the Postal Service of injuries but did not present a valid administrative claim within the Federal Tort Claims Act’s two-year limitations period.
- Low eventually submitted a claim that the Postal Service rejected as invalid and sent a letter stating, among other things, “If your client is still treating for injury please wait until treatment has concluded to file this claim.”
- Low filed suit after the limitations period, asserting equitable tolling or equitable estoppel based on the Postal Service’s letter.
- The Postal Service argued it had repeatedly informed Low of the limitations deadline and did not provide affirmatively misleading advice about the statute of limitations.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Postal Service, concluding Low was not entitled to equitable tolling or estoppel and that no genuine dispute of material fact existed about Postal Service intent to deceive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether equitable tolling applies to excuse filing after the FTCA 2-year deadline | Low: Postal Service letter misled her to delay filing until treatment concluded, so tolling is warranted | Postal Service: repeatedly warned of the deadline and did not give affirmatively misleading advice; Low not diligent | Court: Equitable tolling denied — Low not entitled because no extraordinary circumstances and Postal Service warnings were not misleading |
| Whether equitable estoppel bars the government from asserting the limitations defense | Low: Letter induced her to delay filing, constituting misleading conduct causing injustice | Postal Service: conduct was at most negligent and did not amount to affirmative misconduct; public interest weighs against estoppel | Court: Estoppel denied — Postal Service’s actions not affirmative misconduct beyond negligence and did not produce serious injustice |
| Whether Postal Service intended to deceive Low, creating a factual dispute precluding summary judgment | Low: contends letter could show intent to induce missed deadline (raised on appeal) | Postal Service: denied intent; district court record contained no factual dispute of intent | Court: No genuine issue of material fact — Low did not present evidence of intent below and cannot raise new issues on appeal |
| Whether Low had sufficient time after last major treatment to file within limitations even if misled | Low: argued she was told to wait until treatment ended and thus missed deadline | Postal Service: Low’s last major treatment (angioplasty) occurred in Oct 2012; she had ~3 months afterward to file | Court: Materiality lacking — even if misled, she had nearly three months post-treatment to file, so any misleading was not material |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoefler v. Babbitt, 139 F.3d 726 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment review de novo)
- Hensley v. United States, 531 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.) (equitable tolling standard review when facts undisputed)
- Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir.) (elements for equitable tolling; en banc)
- Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221 (Sup. Ct.) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (Sup. Ct.) (affirming and clarifying tolling principles)
- Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir.) (government must give affirmatively misleading advice to justify tolling)
- Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir.) (elements for equitable estoppel against government)
- Morgan v. Heckler, 779 F.2d 544 (9th Cir.) (equitable estoppel framework against government)
- BankAmerica Pension Plan v. McMath, 206 F.3d 821 (9th Cir.) (cannot raise new issues on appeal to defeat summary judgment)
AFFIRMED.