996 F.3d 102
2d Cir.2021Background
- On October 25, 2017 a USPS tractor-trailer driven by Michael Scholl struck pedestrian Michael Collins, causing multiple fractures (including left knee and ribs) and necessitating surgery and repeated hospitalizations.
- Collins’s counsel submitted an administrative FTCA claim on Form 95 on December 15, 2017 seeking $10,000,000 and describing the date/time/location, driver name, specific fractures, infections, and ongoing treatment; counsel also submitted hospital bills/records and later a HIPAA authorization.
- USPS acknowledged receipt (Jan 8, 2018), requested additional materials only on June 12, 2018, and Collins promptly supplemented and identified outstanding records; Collins filed suit in federal court on August 22, 2018; USPS denied the administrative claim on September 12, 2018 citing failure to submit competent evidence.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the FTCA, arguing Collins’s presentment was not sufficiently specific to permit investigation and valuation; the district court granted dismissal (May 26, 2020).
- The Second Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the FTCA presentment requirement is a notice (not proof) requirement and that Collins’s Form 95 plus accompanying materials were sufficiently specific to permit investigation and valuation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collins’s Dec. 15, 2017 Form 95 satisfied §2675(a) presentment | Form 95 + bills/records gave specific notice of liability, injuries, and sum certain ($10M) | Form 95 alone and later submissions lacked required specificity/supporting evidence to value the claim | Yes — presentment is notice; Collins’s submission was specific enough to permit investigation and valuation |
| Whether presentment requires compliance with §2672 settlement regulations (e.g., 39 C.F.R. §912.7) | No — those regulations govern settlement procedures, not jurisdictional presentment | Yes — agency regs requiring substantiating evidence are necessary to present a claim | No — settlement-regs evidence is not a jurisdictional prerequisite; failure to produce affects settlement, not court access |
| Whether ongoing or later-unproduced medical records (post‑discharge treatment) made presentment inadequate or premature | Collins provided what he had, notified USPS of ongoing hospitalization and gave HIPAA auth; developments can be intervening facts | USPS contends refusal or failure to provide later records shows inadequate presentment | No — ongoing treatment and lack of later records do not defeat an otherwise adequate presentment; presentment need not await full recovery |
| Whether an administrative denial for insufficient evidence deprives district court of jurisdiction | Denial based on lack of evidence does not negate an adequate initial presentment | Denial demonstrates claim was not properly presented and jurisdiction lacking | Denial alone is not dispositive; if initial presentment satisfied §2675(a), court has jurisdiction despite denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Romulus v. United States, 160 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1998) (presentment must be specific enough to permit investigation and permit valuation)
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 700 F.2d 836 (2d Cir. 1983) (presentment must permit agency to estimate claim’s worth)
- Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284 (5th Cir. 1980) (§2675(a) requires notice not substantiation; settlement procedures distinct)
- Avery v. United States, 680 F.2d 608 (9th Cir. 1982) (jurisdictional dismissal inappropriate where only skeletal notice given; §2675 is notice-based)
- GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (distinguishing presentment notice from optional settlement procedures)
- Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. United States, 788 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1986) (presentment sufficient when it gives agency facts needed to investigate)
- Celestine v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Ctr., 403 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2005) (FTCA administrative exhaustion is jurisdictional)