Legend Josiah Cromer v. Dignity Health, 2:24-cv-04731

Plaintiffs sued multiple medical providers for alleged malpractice resulting in the death of Bridgette Burks after she gave birth at California Hospital Medical Center.
Several defendant physicians were employees of Eisner Health, a federally funded health center with "deemed" federal employee status under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA).
The core dispute was whether Eisner Health’s deemed status extended Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) immunity to the Eisner physicians for the alleged malpractice, thus justifying federal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs and the U.S. government filed motions to remand the case to state court, arguing FTCA immunity did not apply under the facts.
The Eisner defendants argued that their deemed status and the hospital’s inclusion as an approved service site under the federal grant justified FTCA coverage.
The court had previously denied remand but revisited the matter in light of key appellate decisions (notably Blumberg v. Tilley and Kelley v. Richford Health), ultimately holding there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether FTCA coverage applies to Eisner	Care was not to a "patient of the entity"	"Deemed" status covers this conduct	FTCA coverage doesn't apply; remand required
professionals for decedent’s care	and Eisner/California Hospital arrangement	and California Hospital was an approved site
	wasn’t within the statute’s limited exceptions	under grant, so immunity attaches
Whether California Hospital as an	Approval as a “site” is not sufficient for	Grant's approved service sites give coverage	Site approval is necessary but not sufficient for
"approved service site" extends immunity	immunity under FTCA; conduct not within scope	for actions at that location	FTCA coverage; conduct must still fit statutory scope
Whether the arrangement fit regulatory	Arrangement didn't "squarely fit" 42 CFR	Arrangement fits with exceptions in regulation	Arrangement didn't fit; particularized HHS
exceptions (or needed individual ruling)	§ 6.6(e) examples, so particularized	or is close enough for coverage	determination required, but was not sought
	determination required
Whether decedent was a patient of Eisner	Not a patient—received prenatal care elsewhere	Patient status unnecessary under grant terms	Decedent not a patient of Eisner; key for denial of
Health (not a patient of entity)	and was only treated at California Hospital	if site is included	FTCA coverage

Blumberger v. Tilley, 115 F.4th 1113 (9th Cir. 2024) (explains distinction between "deemed" and "covered" status under 42 U.S.C. § 233; FTCA coverage requires scope determination apart from mere deeming)
Kelley v. Richford Health Center, Inc., 115 F.4th 132 (2d Cir. 2024) (coverage under FSHCAA is limited to patients of the entity; employees' outside work not automatically covered)
Brown v. King, 592 U.S. 209 (2021) (FTCA immunity strictly construed; actions must be within employment scope)