Niny J. Motta v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10484
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Motta brings FTCA medical malpractice claim for her son against the United States; district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to untimely administrative claim.
- Accrual occurred on March 4, 2008 when Motta knew of the injury and its link to Dr. Martinez’s misdiagnosis; the limitations period expired March 4, 2010.
- SF-95 was not timely filed to the appropriate agency; DHHS is the proper agency, but the SF-95 was first sent to the Department of Commerce (wrong agency), and then forwarded to DHHS.
- Notice of intent to sue was sent January 26, 2010 to CFFHC and Dr. Martinez; CFFHC forwarded it to DHHS but the SF-95 or sum certain was not included at that time.
- Counsel’s misdirection and failure to timely identify the correct agency contributed to the late presentment; the court held no constructive filing nor equitable tolling applied.
- Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether constructive filing applies to FTCA claims. | Motta argues constructive filing should relate to timely presentment. | The appropriate agency never received a proper SF-95 before deadline. | No constructive filing under FTCA in this case. |
| Whether the claim was timely because the SF-95 reached the wrong agency. | Motta asserts CFFHC forwarding duties could cure timely filing. | CFFHC not a federal agency; forwarding duties do not cure misdirection. | No timely filing; wrong-agency forwarding does not constitute timely presentment. |
| Whether equitable tolling applies to FTCA claims. | Equitable tolling should apply due to extraordinary circumstances. | Equitable tolling not satisfied; due diligence lacking. | Equitable tolling does not apply. |
| Whether DHHS was the correct agency and the claim was finally forwarded timely. | DHHS should receive the SF-95 before expiry. | Portion of forwarding was delayed by claimant’s counsel; not due to agency fault. | No timely or proper presentment to DHHS. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bukala v. United States, 854 F.2d 201 (7th Cir. 1988) (constructive filing when incorrect agency receives timely claim then fails to transfer)
- Greene v. United States, 872 F.2d 236 (8th Cir. 1989) (timely filing with wrong agency can be constructive filing if timely transferred)
- Hart v. Department of Labor ex rel. United States, 116 F.3d 1338 (10th Cir. 1997) (timely but misdirected filing may be constructively filed if proper transfer occurs)
- Suarez v. United States, 22 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 1994) (administrative claim prerequisite under FTCA; presentment to appropriate agency)
- McCullough v. United States, 607 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2010) (accrual rule for FTCA malpractice claims)
- Jones v. United States, 294 F. App’x 476 (11th Cir. 2008) (failure to know employer does not toll statute)
- Ramos v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 429 F. App’x 947 (11th Cir. 2011) (FTCA equitable tolling considerations in circuit)
- Hejl v. United States, 449 F.2d 124 (5th Cir. 1971) (agency responsibility for FTCA presentment)