Gagliano v. United States
2:24-cv-07930
E.D.N.YApr 14, 2025Background
- Cheryl F. Gagliano, on behalf of herself and her late husband’s estate, alleges medical malpractice and wrongful death under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United States, stemming from care received at the Northport VA Medical Center.
- Plaintiff claims the decedent suffered injuries (such as bedsores and contusions) and ultimately died due to negligent care by the VA.
- After her husband’s death, Gagliano filed an administrative claim with the VA; the claim and a subsequent request for reconsideration were both denied.
- The core procedural issue is whether Gagliano filed her federal lawsuit within the six-month statutory period following the agency’s action on her reconsideration request.
- The United States moved to dismiss, asserting the complaint was untimely; both parties jointly requested a stay of discovery pending resolution of this motion.
- The court’s decision is on whether to grant a stay of discovery while the motion to dismiss is pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint was timely filed under FTCA | Lawsuit was timely—relied on VA denial letter, case law | Complaint was untimely—statutory period expired | Defendant showed strong likelihood claim untimely |
| Applicability of equitable tolling | Equitable tolling should apply; unfair to penalize widow | No extraordinary circumstances; no reasonable diligence | Plaintiff failed to show entitlement to tolling |
| Discovery burden and efficiency | No distinct opposition; both parties sought a stay | Discovery would be burdensome, especially if dismissed | Breadth/burden of discovery justifies stay |
| Risk of unfair prejudice from granting a stay | No opposition; joint request | Would avoid wasted costs if case is dismissed | Little to no prejudice; stay is warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (recognized court’s inherent power to stay proceedings for judicial economy)
- Zerilli-Edelglass v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2003) (articulates equitable tolling standard: reasonable diligence, extraordinary circumstances)
- Sitts v. United States, 811 F.2d 736 (2d Cir. 1987) (discusses need for expert testimony and scope of discovery in medical malpractice cases)