Grace v. United States
754 F. Supp. 2d 585
W.D.N.Y.2010Background
- Grace, a veteran, sues the United States/VA and state-law claims against University of Rochester and Dr. Boghani alleging malpractice in ophthalmology care.
- A contract dated around October 1, 2001, between the VA and U of R outsourced VA ophthalmology services to independent contractors, with the VA supervising only non-medical aspects.
- Boghani Worked at the VA clinic as a contract ophthalmologist; VA scheduling and records systems were used; day-to-day medical control rested with U of R, not VA.
- Grace's July 29, 2003 appointment with Boghani was canceled; the subsequent follow-up was not rescheduled by the VA, leading to delayed treatment and later blindness.
- Grace filed an FTCA administrative claim in August 2006 and later filed this action in January 2008; Boghani/U of R were added in 2009.
- The United States moved to dismiss these FTCA claims as barred by sovereign immunity and the NY statute of limitations; U of R and Boghani moved for summary judgment on state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boghani and U of R are subject to FTCA liability as government employees | Grace asserts FTCA liability covers VA-contract providers; Boghani is VA-provided care. | Boghani/U of R are independent contractors, not government employees, so FTCA immunity applies. | Independent contractor; FTCA no liability for Boghani/U of R. |
| Whether the claims against Boghani/U of R relate back under New York or federal relation-back rules | Relation back to original FTCA filing should permit adding Boghani/U of R. | No relation back; no unity of interest and no timely notice within 120 days; also exhaustion issues. | Relation back does not apply; claims against Boghani/U of R are time-barred. |
| Whether Grace's FTCA claims against Boghani/U of R were exhausted administratively | Administrative claim encompassed more than Boghani; varied theories were raised later. | Administrative notice did not adequately alert VA to all theories; some claims were not exhausted. | Exhaustion not satisfied for most theories; only rescheduling failure claim remains properly exhausted. |
| Whether the state-law malpractice claims against Boghani/U of R are time-barred under CPLR 214-a | Continuous-treatment theory could toll limitations; relation back may save claims. | Accrual no later than July 27, 2005; filing in May 2009 is untimely; relation back fails. | CPLR 214-a claims time-barred; summary judgment for Boghani/U of R on those claims. |
| Whether the remaining FTCA claim (rescheduling after July 29, 2003) can proceed against the United States | VA staff failed to reschedule; negligence under FTCA exists. | No administrative exhaustion or agency notice for this theory; sovereign immunity remains. | FTCA claim survives only to the extent of rescheduling negligence; other theories dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leone v. U.S., 910 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.1990) (strict control test; independent contractor analysis in FTCA)
- Leone v. U.S., 910 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.1990) (agency factors; specialists typically operate without day-to-day supervision)
- Perma Research & Dev. Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572 (2d Cir.1969) (avoid relying on self-contradictory deposition testimony in summary judgment)
- Romulus v. U.S., 160 F.3d 131 (2d Cir.1998) (administrative claim scope and exhaustion principles under FTCA)
- Aslanidis v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1067 (2d Cir.1993) (relation back under Rule 15(c) notice requirement for added parties)
- Bruns v. Village of Catskill, 169 A.D.2d 963 (3d Dept.1991) (actual notice within limitations period required for relation back)
- Soto v. Brooklyn Correctional Facility, 80 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.1996) (legal mistake theory under relation back doctrine)
- Makarova v. U.S., 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.2000) (jurisdictional standard; evidence outside pleadings permissible on 12(b)(1))
- Aslanidis v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 7 F.3d 1067 (2d Cir.1993) (notice within 120 days; relation back limitations)