D. S.-W. v. United States
962 F.3d 745
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- 2009: D.J.S.-W. suffered a brachial-plexus/shoulder injury during delivery at Sharon Regional Health Center; delivery attended by Dr. John Gallagher.
- Counsel (2010–2011) requested records limited to the delivery and 12 hours before, searched Sharon Hospital/Dr. Gallagher online, but did not contact Sharon Hospital, Primary Health Network (PHN), or the HRSA database.
- Dr. Gallagher was employed by Primary Health Network, a “deemed” federal entity under 42 U.S.C. § 233; some produced records and an address indicated PHN, but counsel did not follow those leads.
- Mother filed suit in Pennsylvania state court in late 2016 relying on state minor tolling; the Government removed, substituted the United States for Dr. Gallagher, and the federal FTCA claim was untimely.
- After administrative exhaustion and renewed suit, the District Court denied equitable tolling and granted summary judgment for the United States; the Third Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiff failed to show both required equitable-tolling elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FTCA statute of limitations should be equitably tolled | Counsel had no reason to know Dr. Gallagher was a federal ("deemed") employee, so extraordinary circumstances prevented timely FTCA presentment | Counsel failed to exercise due diligence; multiple red flags existed and no extraordinary circumstance prevented discovery | Denied. Plaintiff did not satisfy either prong (diligence and extraordinary circumstance), so equitable tolling does not apply |
| Whether state-law tolling (PA minor tolling) rescues an untimely FTCA claim | Relying on PA tolling delayed filing until the minor turned 18 | FTCA time limits are federal and state tolling statutes do not extend FTCA deadlines | Confirmed: state tolling does not save an untimely FTCA claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lomando v. United States, 667 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2011) (explains "deemed" federal-employee status under 42 U.S.C. § 233 and FTCA substitution implications)
- Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2009) (equitable tolling applied where government-created "trap" made federal status oblique despite diligent investigation)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (articulates equitable-tolling test: diligent pursuit of rights + extraordinary circumstances)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (2016) (reaffirmed that diligence and extraordinary-circumstance are distinct prongs; extraordinary means beyond the litigant's control)
- United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (2015) (FTCA claim-presentation requirements are time limits, not jurisdictional, and can be tolled on equitable grounds)
- Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy to be applied sparingly)
- Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (3d Cir. 1994) (identifies principal scenarios where equitable tolling may be appropriate)
- Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005) (emphasizes the diligence requirement; pro se status or mental incompetence are not per se extraordinary)