Dupont v. United States
197 F. Supp. 3d 678
D.N.J.2016Background
- Decedent Lakeisha Mayner-Dupont was treated at CAMcare Health Corporation (a federally qualified health center) and later died of cervical cancer; her husband, Versie Dupont, brought FTCA wrongful-death claims against the United States as substitute defendant for CAMcare and its staff.
- CAMcare is a New Jersey nonprofit with 501(c)(3) tax status, funded by patient revenue and federal/state grants, and serves low-income and Medicaid patients.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing CAMcare is absolutely immune under the New Jersey Charitable Immunity Act (NJCIA) § 2A:53A-7(a); alternatively it sought partial summary judgment that CAMcare is a nonprofit hospital subject only to the § 2A:53A-8 $250,000 damages cap.
- Dupont opposed, arguing CAMcare is not a charity under the NJCIA and sought discovery to contest hospital/nonprofit status.
- The Court treated the Government’s challenge as a factual attack on jurisdiction, concluded the United States may assert state-law immunities and defenses available to a similarly situated private entity under the FTCA, denied dismissal because CAMcare is not a charity under § 2A:53A-7(a), and denied without prejudice the Government’s partial summary judgment on the § 2A:53A-8 damages-cap issue to allow discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.S. (as substituted FTCA defendant) may invoke immunities under New Jersey law | Dupont: State-law charitable immunity should not limit the federal waiver; the U.S. cannot assert NJCIA immunity here | U.S.: Under FTCA the U.S. stands in the shoes of a private defendant and may raise state-law immunities/defenses (including NJCIA) | Held: U.S. may assert defenses available to a similarly-placed private entity under state law (FTCA/§2674; Lomando) |
| Whether CAMcare is a "charitable organization" entitled to absolute immunity under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7(a) | Dupont: CAMcare is not organized "exclusively for charitable purposes" and relies on governmental funding rather than charitable donations | U.S.: CAMcare’s mission, services to underserved and indigent patients, and nonprofit status make it a charity | Held: CAMcare is not a charity under § 2A:53A-7(a); denial of motion to dismiss (no absolute immunity) |
| Whether CAMcare qualifies as a "nonprofit hospital" under N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-8 and thus is subject to a $250,000 damages cap | Dupont: Requests discovery to contest CAMcare’s hospital status and nonprofit character; opposes early summary judgment | U.S.: CAMcare’s operations, mission, and nonprofit formation support application of § 2A:53A-8 damages cap | Held: Court denied partial summary judgment without prejudice and permitted discovery because the § 2A:53A-8 question is factual and not necessary to resolve jurisdiction now |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807 (U.S. 1976) (FTCA as limited waiver of sovereign immunity)
- United States v. Nordic Village, 503 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1992) (waivers of sovereign immunity construed narrowly)
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1994) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional bar)
- Lomando v. United States, 667 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2011) (United States may assert defenses available to similarly placed private employers under state law, including NJCIA defenses)
- Kuchera v. Jersey Shore Fam. Health Ctr., 111 A.3d 84 (N.J. 2015) (modern hospital functions include charity care; entity providing comprehensive community health services may be a hospital under NJCIA § 8 rather than a charity under § 7)
- Bieker v. Community House of Moorestown, 777 A.2d 37 (N.J. 2001) (organizations claiming NJCIA immunity must show charitable support/donations and charitable character)