Olson v. United States
953 F. Supp. 2d 223
D.D.C.2013Background
- Olsons sue the United States under the FTCA for negligent supervision of CIA personnel involved in Dr. Frank Olson’s death in 1953 and subsequent cover-up.
- In 1953, Olson ingested LSD during a CIA-associated experiment and died by a 13-story fall alleged to be a contrived accident.
- The Olsons settled with the Government in 1976 under Private Law 94-126, waiving all claims arising from Olson’s death in exchange for monetary payments.
- Exhumation in 1994 and later autopsy raised doubts about suicide, suggesting a possible homicide consistent with a CIA “secret assassination” trope.
- The Olsons filed this FTCA suit on November 28, 2012, asserting negligent supervision and ongoing misrepresentations by the CIA.
- The Court grants the Government’s motion to dismiss, finding largely untimely, waived, or barred by misrepresentation/deceit exceptions and settlement terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuing-violation tolling defeats the statute of limitations | Olsons rely on continuing-violation; timing spans decades | No continuing-violation; limitations barred pre-2010 | Statute of limitations bars pre-2010 claims; only timely 2011 misrepresentation remains (addressed later) |
| Whether the 1976 settlement bars the current claims | Settlement did not bar negligent-supervision claims | Settlement waives all claims arising from Olson’s death | Settlement bars claims relating to the death itself; broader scope to be addressed under 12(b)(6) as needed |
| Whether claims sound in misrepresentation/deceit and are barred by §2680(h) | Claims include negligent supervision but hinge on misrepresentation and deceit | FTCA misrepresentation/deceit exception applies; §2680(h) bars jurisdiction | Court lacks jurisdiction for timely or unwaived misrepresentation/deceit claims under §2680(h) |
Key Cases Cited
- Keohane v. United States, 669 F.3d 325 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (continuing-violation doctrine in SOL context as applied by D.C. Cir.)
- Taylor v. FDIC, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (continuing-violation limitations applicability guidance)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (S. Ct. 2002) (discrete acts not tolled; continuing-violation limited)
- Earle v. District of Columbia, 707 F.3d 299 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (continuing-violation scope and accumulation concept)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (S. Ct. 2007) (threshold jurisdiction principal; agency discretion)
- Shearer v. United States, 473 U.S. 52 (S. Ct. 1985) (§2680(h) misrepresentation/deceit carve-out)
- Hansson v. Norton, 411 F.3d 231 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (settlement contracts treated as Tucker Act contracts for jurisdictional purposes)
- Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (interpretation of §2680(h) scope and coverage)
- Harris v. FAA, 353 F.3d 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (12(b)(1) vs. 12(b)(6) labeling considerations in threshold rulings)