Melissa Clutter-Johnson v. United States
714 F. App'x 205
4th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Melissa Clutter-Johnson sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging negligence related to an IUD placement at a federally funded clinic (Access Health) that resulted in pregnancy with twins.
- IUD was placed in 2009; plaintiff discovered she was approximately eight weeks pregnant at an Access Health visit on October 24, 2012.
- Plaintiff filed an administrative FTCA claim with HHS on May 8, 2015, more than two years after discovering the pregnancy.
- District court granted summary judgment for the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), concluding the wrongful pregnancy claim accrued when plaintiff learned of the pregnancy and was time-barred; equitable tolling/continuous treatment doctrine were rejected.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing accrual did not occur when she learned she was pregnant because she did not know (and could not reasonably be charged with knowing) that negligent placement by a federal employee—rather than a defective IUD—caused the pregnancy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the FTCA limitations period accrue for a wrongful-pregnancy claim? | Accrual had not occurred on Oct. 24, 2012 because plaintiff did not know negligent placement by a federal employee (as opposed to a defective device) caused the pregnancy. | Accrual occurred on Oct. 24, 2012 when plaintiff knew she was pregnant and that the IUD had been placed by federal employees, triggering a duty to inquire. | Accrual occurred when plaintiff discovered the pregnancy; claim filed in 2015 was time-barred. |
| Does incorrect or inconclusive medical advice postpone accrual? | Plaintiff relied on physicians’ statements suggesting the IUD might be defective or did not indicate negligent placement. | Incorrect or inconclusive medical advice does not prevent accrual once the claimant has the critical facts. | Advice that she received no negligent treatment or that the device might be defective does not delay accrual. |
| Does the continuous treatment doctrine toll the FTCA limitations here? | Plaintiff argued ongoing care at Access Health tolls the limitations period. | Defendant argued treatment was not continuous care for the same problem by the same provider group to correct the injury. | Doctrine did not apply because record did not show continuous treatment addressing the injury by the same doctor/team. |
| Should equitable tolling apply? | Plaintiff implied equitable considerations should excuse late filing. | Defendant contended no basis for tolling given Kubrick accrual rule and lack of continuous treatment. | Court declined equitable tolling; limitations period was not tolled. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (FTCA claim accrues when claimant knows of injury and its cause or should have discovered them with due diligence)
- Gould v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 905 F.2d 738 (4th Cir. 1990) (accrual occurs when plaintiff knows or should know existence and cause of injury)
- Miller v. United States, 932 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1991) (continuous treatment doctrine tolls accrual while claimant remains under continuous treatment for same problem by same physician/team)
- Kerstetter v. United States, 57 F.3d 362 (4th Cir. 1995) (precise medical reason need not be known; accrual occurs if plaintiff knows a medical treatment caused the injury)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute as to material fact requires jury)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1941) (sovereign immunity and consent to suit principles)