Hampel v. United States
2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 113
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Natalya Hampel, pro se, sues the United States for damages related to her husband Joseph Hampel's death in March 2002.
- Hampel alleges medical negligence and malpractice by several Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and staff from 1999 through 2002.
- Hampel claims the care at multiple VA hospitals caused a wound infection, surgeries, and eventual death by septic shock.
- Plaintiff seeks damages and also asserts constitutional violations regarding denial of veterans benefits and other rights.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; briefing completed November 2010.
- The court grants the Government’s motion, concluding the Court of Federal Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over tort claims | Hampel contends the court has authority to award damages for medical malpractice. | Tucker Act jurisdiction does not cover tort claims; CF Claims lacks money-mandating authority for negligence. | Lack of jurisdiction; tort claims dismissed. |
| Money-mandating nature of constitutional claims | Constitutional rights violations entitle damages from the government. | CF Claims does not authorize monetary relief for most constitutional claims not money-mandating. | Constitutional claims dismissed; not money-mandating. |
| Denial of veterans benefits claims | Denial of her husband’s death benefits warrants relief in this court. | Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction over denial of veterans benefits. | Remedy for denial of veterans benefits dismissed. |
| Transfer to proper court | If lacking jurisdiction, the court should transfer in the interest of justice. | Transfer would be inappropriate here since she already brought the case in district court. | No transfer; not appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and not money-mandating)
- Adair v. United States, 497 F.3d 1244 (Fed.Cir.2007) (money-mandating statute requirement)
- Mendez-Cardenas v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 162 (2009) (CFClaims lacks jurisdiction over negligence claims)
- Moore v. Durango Jail, 77 Fed.Cl. 92 (2007) (CF Claims lacks jurisdiction over tort claims)
- McCullough v. United States, 76 Fed.Cl. 1 (2006) (medical malpractice is a tort outside CF Claims)
- Hernandez v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 193 (2010) (constitutional amendments cited not money-mandating)
- Rosano v. United States, 9 Cl.Ct. 137 (1985) (other constitutional claims not money-mandating)
- Crocker v. United States, 125 F.3d 1475 (Fed.Cir.1997) (Fifth Amendment due process not money-mandating)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed.Cir.1995) (Equal protection not money-mandating)
- H Hampel v. United States, 706 F.Supp.2d 629 (D. Md. 2010) (district court dismissal for lack of jurisdiction)