Mader v. United States
619 F.3d 996
8th Cir.2011Background
- Mader, as purported Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert L. Mader, sought FTCA wrongful-death relief by presenting a claim to the VA on Aug 3, 2006, without evidence of her authority to represent statutorily designated beneficiaries.
- The VA denied the claim on Sept 19, 2007 after Ms. Mader’s failure to provide authority documentation, and she did not respond to repeated requests.
- Ms. Mader then filed a federal FTCA action in March 2008; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Lunsford due to missing authority evidence.
- A prior panel favored a minimal-notice approach under Farmers, but the en banc court rejected that view and held that § 2675(a) requires proof of authority to represent beneficiaries.
- Nebraska law requires a personal representative to bring wrongful-death actions for the exclusive benefit of specified beneficiaries; the majority later concludes Ms. Mader lacked standing because her appointment had terminated prior to the claim.
- The court ultimately affirms dismissal on jurisdictional grounds and discusses the related standing issue, noting the lack of authority undermines meaningful administrative settlement under § 2672 and the FTCA waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2675(a) requires evidence of authority to represent beneficiaries | Mader argues only minimal notice is required (no authority evidence) | U.S. contends authority evidence is required to satisfy presentment | Yes, authority evidence is required and presentment must include it |
| Whether § 2675(a) presentment is jurisdictional | Treat presentment as non-jurisdictional (claim-processing) | Presentment is jurisdictional to trigger FTCA waiver | Jurisdictional requirement under § 2675(a) |
| Whether the en banc majority properly rejected the minimal-notice approach | Lunsford should control; Farmers misapplied | Farmers aligns with practical notice; Lunsford is distinguishable | En banc rejects Farmers; Lunsford not controlling; adopts authority-evidence rule |
| Standing to assert the Nebraska wrongful-death claim | Ms. Mader’s status as personal representative suffices | Appointment terminated; no standing to sue | Ms. Mader lacked standing; alternative standing discussion foreclosed by failure of representation |
| Regulatory deference and interpretation of § 14.2(a) | Regulation should be read narrowly; statute controls | Regulation appropriately interprets presentment | Regulation aligned with majority interpretation; no deference needed beyond Chevron since statute already supports result |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1977) (presentment for unnamed class members; authority evidence questioned)
- Farmers State Savings Bank v. Farmers Home Administration, 866 F.2d 276 (8th Cir. 1989) (minimal-notice approach to presentment; information and damages sufficiency)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1993) (exhaustion before suit; statutory interpretation of § 2675(a))
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (S. Ct. 2011) (court refines concept of jurisdictional rules; applies to FTCA context)
- Kanar v. United States, 118 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 1997) (DOJ regulation source of evidence-of-authority; limited jurisdictional implication)