Phillips v. Generations Family Health Center
723 F.3d 144
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Phillips, administrator of Karen Cato’s estate, sues Generations in state court for medical malpractice.
- Generations, a federally funded provider deemed a federal employee, was removed to federal court under FTCA rules.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to file an administrative claim with HHS within the FTCA limitations period.
- Court considered whether equitable tolling could save the claim under FTCA and Westfall Act, influenced by A.Q.C. ex rel. Castillo v. United States (2011).
- Panel remanded to reconsider under a clarified standard, emphasizing case-by-case evaluation of diligence and potential differences from A.Q.C.
- Record showed potential issues with plaintiff’s counsel’s investigation into Generations’s federal status and availability of public resources.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is equitable tolling available under the FTCA here? | Phillips seeks tolling due to lack of notice of federal status. | Govt. status should be determined with discretion; FTCA limitations may be non-tollable. | Open question; remanded for reconsideration under proper standard. |
| Did the district court misapply A.Q.C. as controlling law in denying tolling? | A.Q.C. not per se rule; totality of circumstances matters. | A.Q.C. dictates lack of diligence under similar facts. | Remand to apply clarified standard with distinctions from A.Q.C. |
| Were Phillips's lawyers diligent in investigating Generations’s federal status? | Evidence differs from A.Q.C.; diligent steps were taken to obtain records and assess status. | Law firm should have investigated using available resources; diligence lacking. | Remand to assess totality and diligence on remand. |
| Should the district court consider differences between this case and A.Q.C. on remand? | Differences may warrant tolling where counsel had less reason to suspect federal status. | A.Q.C. framework applies uniformly. | Remand for consideration of relevant distinctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- A.Q.C. ex rel. Castillo v. United States, 656 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2011) (case on equitable tolling under FTCA; emphasizes case-specific diligence)
- Celestine v. Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Ctr., 403 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2005) (warns about state vs federal limitations trap and tolling considerations)
- Valdez ex rel. Donely v. United States, 518 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2008) (criticizes government failure to disclose federal status; tolling concerns)
- Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2009) (considered notice and diligence in determining federal status)
- Doe v. Menefee, 391 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for extraordinary circumstances and diligence in tolling)