John Raplee, Jr. v. United States
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20945
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Sept. 2006 Raplee underwent surgery at NIH and alleges negligent positioning by federal surgeons caused permanent foot injury.
- Under the FTCA a plaintiff must first file an administrative claim with the relevant federal agency; after agency denial, the plaintiff has six months to "begin an action" under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
- Raplee’s administrative claim was filed with HHS in Sept. 2008; HHS mailed a final denial on June 19, 2012 to Raplee’s former attorney (Trpis) at his firm; the certified letter was returned as undeliverable.
- Raplee filed a Maryland pre-suit medical-malpractice claim with the state ADR office on Nov. 8, 2012 (to satisfy Maryland pre-filing rules), submitted the expert report Feb. 2013, waived arbitration Mar. 2013, and filed a federal complaint May 3, 2013—after the six-month FTCA period elapsed (deadline Dec. 19, 2012).
- District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (then understood as jurisdictional); after Kwai Fun Wong held § 2401(b) a claims‑processing rule, the district court considered equitable tolling and denied relief; Raplee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing a state administrative pre-suit claim qualifies as "an action is begun" under § 2401(b) | Filing the Maryland ADR claim (required by state law) should count as beginning an action for § 2401(b) purposes | "Action" means a federal civil action; only filing a federal complaint begins an action under § 2401(b) | Court held "action" means filing a civil action in federal district court; state administrative filing does not satisfy § 2401(b) |
| Whether HHS’s failure to resend notice after return constitutes extraordinary circumstances for equitable tolling | Lack of effective notice (HHS letter returned) prevented timely filing and warrants tolling | HHS mailed to counsel’s provided address and confirmed delivery; no statutory duty to resend; counsel’s handling of mail caused failure | Court held HHS did not commit wrongful conduct amounting to extraordinary circumstances; tolling denied |
| Whether attorney abandonment (Maples) justifies equitable tolling | Raplee’s original attorney left firm without notice, so abandonment prevented timely filing and warrants tolling | Other attorneys at the firm continued representation; no causal link between departure and late filing | Court held Maples inapplicable: no abandonment that caused the missed deadline; tolling denied |
| Whether extraordinary circumstances otherwise justify equitable tolling | State pre-filing burdens and administrative delay justify tolling | Plaintiffs must show diligence and extraordinary external circumstances; none shown here | Court held equitable tolling unavailable; plaintiff failed to show extraordinary circumstances and diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015) (FTCA limitations rule is a claims‑processing rule, not jurisdictional, and may be equitably tolled)
- Maples v. Thomas, 132 S. Ct. 912 (2012) (attorney abandonment may excuse defaults where attorney abandons client without notice)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling not warranted for routine attorney mishandling of deadlines)
- Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling reserved for rare instances of extraordinary external circumstances)
- Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for equitable tolling denials)
- Gould v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 905 F.2d 738 (4th Cir. 1990) (prior Fourth Circuit view treating FTCA limitations as jurisdictional)
- Levin v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1224 (2013) (FTCA makes U.S. liable under like circumstances and state law governs substantive liability)