Patricia Lupole v. United States
20-1811
| 4th Cir. | Nov 3, 2021Background
- Patricia Lupole, administratrix of Gary Lupole's estate, sued under the FTCA for alleged VA medical negligence in failing to screen Gary for liver cancer and for wrongful death.
- The district court found both claims accrued on December 23, 2011 (date of confirmed cancer diagnosis); Patricia filed her administrative tort claim on January 31, 2014 (after the two-year FTCA filing period).
- Patricia argued the continuous treatment doctrine tolled the FTCA two-year limitations period, postponing accrual until VA treatment for the same problem ceased.
- The district court granted the United States summary judgment, concluding the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply because Gary did not receive treatment to correct/reverse the same problem within the relevant period.
- Patricia moved for reconsideration under Rule 54(b); the district court denied it and the court of appeals found no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the continuous treatment doctrine tolled accrual of FTCA claims | Continuous treatment by VA for the same condition delayed accrual until treatment ceased | No continuous corrective treatment for the same problem continued within the limitations period; accrual occurred Dec. 23, 2011 | Continuous treatment doctrine did not apply; claims were time-barred |
| Whether denial of Rule 54(b) reconsideration was an abuse of discretion | Reconsideration warranted based on evidence alleged to undermine the statute-of-limit ruling | Motion showed no change in law and did not identify clear error or manifest injustice | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (FTCA accrual: claim accrues when plaintiff knows injury and probable cause)
- Miller v. United States, 932 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1991) (continuous treatment doctrine can toll FTCA accrual when treatment for same problem continues)
- Otto v. Nat’l Inst. of Health, 815 F.2d 985 (4th Cir. 1987) (continuous treatment rationale and limits)
- Gould v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 905 F.2d 738 (4th Cir. 1990) (FTCA waiver of sovereign immunity is strictly construed)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 300 F.3d 400 (4th Cir. 2002) (when a motion converts to summary judgment after consideration of matters outside pleadings)