Ronald Glade v. United States
692 F.3d 718
7th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiff is a Wisconsin resident, 64-year-old Navy veteran with PTSD and other mental illnesses, who sues under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries from a VA therapist’s sexual relationship during treatment; acts occurred in Wisconsin.
- Therapist employed by the VA conducted sexual acts with plaintiff during therapy sessions; VA investigated and she admitted the relationship.
- FTCA § 2680(h) excludes battery from liability; therapist is not a defendant, so the battery exception defeats government liability under respondeat superior.
- Plaintiff argues a VA “special relationship” created an independent duty to protect him from misconduct by VA personnel, i.e., a relational tort.
- District court dismissed on pleadings for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 2675(a); the government asserts exhaustion and the battery exception bar liability; the court addresses whether a relational duty exists and which state's law applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the battery exception bars FTCA liability here | Plaintiff argues supervisor negligence may create liability beyond battery. | Government: battery exception bars FTCA liability for the implied supervisory claim. | Battery exception bars liability unless a relational duty exists; court finds relational duty not established. |
| Whether VA owed an independent duty under a special/relational relationship | Plaintiff contends VA owed a duty to protect him due to long-term treatment. | Government: no independent relational duty formed by outpatient treatment. | No cognizable relational tort; no independent duty established. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies under § 2675(a) controls | Exhaustion is non-jurisdictional and may be waived; plaintiff argues adequacy of claim signals exhaustion. | § 2675(a) requires exhaustion; claim insufficient to proceed. | Exhaustion is non-jurisdictional but not dispositive here; claim lacks merit regardless; dismissal affirmed. |
| What governing law applies to the alleged negligent acts/omissions | Wrongdoing in Wisconsin while some acts may have occurred in Illinois; choice of law matters for relational tort. | Apply conflict-of-law rules to determine where the act occurred and which law governs; Wisconsin/Illinois considerations. | Acts potentially occurred in Wisconsin/Illinois; conflict-of-law analysis pending but ultimately unrevealing since relational tort not established. |
| Whether the district court correctly dismissed on pleadings | Relational duty theory supports a capable claim against the VA. | Respondeat superior excluded; no independent duty; exhausted requirements not met. | Judgment of dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (exhaustion not jurisdictional; subject-matter jurisdiction reserved for adjudicatory authority; exhaustion can be waived)
- Sheridan v. United States, 487 U.S. 392 (1988) (negligent-supervision claims; discussion of duty and causation in negligent-government context)
- Doe v. United States, 838 F.2d 220 (7th Cir. 1988) (excluded torts and supervisory liability under FTCA status guidance)
- LM ex rel. KM v. United States, 344 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2003) (respondeat superior liability is derivative; limits on government liability for employee torts)
- Parrott v. United States, 536 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion of administrative remedies not jurisdictional; standard applied in FTCA context)
- Collins v. United States, 564 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2009) (further elaboration on exhaustion under FTCA)
- West v. Waymire, 114 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 1997) (negligent-supervision vs relational duties distinctions in tort claims)
- Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (1962) (conflict-of-law principles for FTCA applying state law where act occurred)
- Paine v. Cason, 678 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2012) (vague notion of special relationships; context discussed in relational tort analysis)