Crane v. United States
664 F. App'x 929
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Crane worked for NAVAIR and was placed on inactive status after a work-related injury; he medically retired on July 3, 2006.
- DFAS erroneously continued paying Crane normal salary from Feb 2003 until Apr 13, 2005.
- Crane returned some funds (two personal checks and five government checks); DFAS also offset retirement/TSP funds and later applied a portion of his lump-sum annual leave to an alleged remaining debt.
- Crane pursued administrative relief (Navy, OPM) beginning in 2008 and received partial recovery ($1,386.51) but his Navy and OPM claims were ultimately denied.
- In April 2015 Crane sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and Maryland Wage Payment law seeking unpaid vacation leave and investment losses; the Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Crane’s FTCA tort claims | Crane asserted the government’s pay error gave rise to tort/liability under FTCA | Government argued FTCA tort claims belong in federal district court, not CFC | CFC lacks jurisdiction over FTCA tort claims; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the CFC can hear Crane’s state-law wage claim | Crane invoked Maryland Wage Payment law for unpaid annual leave | Government argued state-law claims are outside CFC’s limited Tucker Act jurisdiction | State-law claims are outside CFC jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Crane’s claim could be construed to invoke another CFC jurisdictional basis (pro se construction) | Crane sought liberal construction to find a Tucker Act or contract-based claim | Government argued no separate money-mandating federal right was pleaded and statute of limitations ran | Court found no alternate Tucker Act basis and the claim was time-barred |
| Whether Crane’s claims were timely under the CFC’s six-year statute of limitations | Crane argued entitlement to leave pay accrued on separation; sought relief despite delay | Government argued any claim accrued by July 3, 2006, and CFC’s 6-year jurisdictional limitation expired | Court held claim accrued by July 3, 2006; suit filed April 2015 was time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (Supreme Court 1993) (Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort cases)
- Todd v. United States, 386 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Tucker Act requires identification of a separate money-mandating right)
- Souders v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (state-law claims fall outside CFC jurisdiction)
- FloorPro, Inc. v. United States, 680 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (6-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 is jurisdictional and not waivable)
- San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 639 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claim accrues when events fixing liability have occurred; objective standard)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court 2007) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed)