106 Fed. Cl. 294
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- January 2006: Gable underwent left knee replacement at the DVA Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
- Post-surgery, Gable developed a serious staph infection requiring intensive care.
- August 23, 2006: allegedly non-consensual amputation of the left leg at the VA facility, with subsequent surgeries.
- Alleged VA negligence included medical care failures, medication issues, physical restraint, sedation, and inadequate mobility/rehabilitation provisions.
- Discharged from VA Medical Center in October 2006; later administrative FTCA claim filed September 16, 2008.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over the FTCA-based tort claims | Gable argues the Tucker Act provides jurisdiction | Government contends tort claims fall outside Tucker Act jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims under Tucker Act. |
| Whether Sixth Amendment claims are money-mandating or jurisdictional | Sixth Amendment rights are actionable against the government | Sixth Amendment claims are not money-mandating and not within this court | No jurisdiction for Sixth Amendment claim in the CFC. |
| Whether ADA claims are within the CFC’s jurisdiction | ADA damages against the United States are actionable | ADA claims are not money-mandating and require district courts | No jurisdiction for ADA claims in the CFC. |
| Whether §1631 transfer to a district court is proper to cure jurisdictional defect | N/A | Transfer appropriate to cure lack of jurisdiction | Transfer to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia appropriate. |
| Whether the case should be transferred given FTCA statute of limitations | N/A | Transfer justified to avoid time-bar if refiled | Transfer justified under §1631; action timely in transfer context. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act jurisdiction is jurisdictional, requires independent right to money damages)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed.Cir.2005) (Tucker Act requires separate substantive right to money damages)
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1989) (Tucker Act framework and jurisdictional principles)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States, 655 F.2d 1047 (Ct.Cl. 1981) (Tort claims are beyond Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Mendez-Cardenas v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 162 (2009) (Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims in the CFC)