Sanchez v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 685
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Rafaela Sanchez died April 24, 2009, after a C‑section at North Shore Medical Center; her husband Angel Sanchez alleges malpractice by Drs. Kristin Cotter and Kalinda Dennis.
- The treating physicians were employees of Lynn Community Health Center (LCHC), which in turn was a "deemed" federal entity under the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act, making the doctors federal employees for FTCA purposes.
- Sanchez retained counsel before February 2010 but did not file suit until April 11, 2012—more than two years after accrual under the FTCA's limitations rule.
- The United States removed the case, substituted itself as defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d), and the district court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction as time‑barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
- Sanchez argued (1) the discovery rule delayed accrual until May 27, 2010, or (2) equitable tolling excused late presentation; the First Circuit reviewed accrual and tolling de novo and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the FTCA cause of action accrue? | Accrual delayed under discovery rule until May 27, 2010 (or later when certain records became legible). | Accrual occurred no later than when counsel was retained (before Feb 2010); death and contemporaneous records made injury and probable cause knowable. | Accrued by retention of counsel before Feb 2010; discovery rule did not postpone accrual to 2010/2012. |
| Can equitable tolling save an FTCA claim here? | Equitable tolling should apply due to lack of notice that defendants were federal employees and unavailable records. | Counsel had means to discover federal status with reasonable diligence; failure to investigate bars tolling per Gonzalez. | No equitable tolling: plaintiff failed to show due diligence; tolling unavailable on these facts. |
| Is the FTCA limitations period jurisdictional and thus untollable? | Plaintiff contended deadlines need not be jurisdictional for tolling to apply. | Govt treated time limits as jurisdictional and jurisdictional bar to suit. | Court assumed, favorably to plaintiff, that equitable tolling might be available, but found no factual basis here; did not overrule Gonzalez. |
| Whether prior circuit precedent (Gonzalez) should be overruled given other circuits' approaches | urged that other circuits allow more leniency and Gonzalez should be revisited. | Gonzalez is controlling; no supervening authority justifies overruling. | Declined to overrule Gonzalez; affirmed dismissal under controlling precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzalez v. United States, 284 F.3d 281 (1st Cir.) (counsel's failure to investigate federal‑employee status defeats equitable tolling)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (discovery rule in federal tort claims limited to knowledge of injury and probable cause)
- Donahue v. United States, 634 F.3d 615 (1st Cir.) (accrual and objective inquiry into when plaintiff reasonably should have known cause)
- Ramírez‑Carlo v. United States, 496 F.3d 41 (1st Cir.) (assumption that equitable tolling can apply to FTCA deadlines where diligence shown)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Reg'l Med. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013) (discussion of jurisdictional labeling and its effect on equitable tolling)
- Harrison v. United States, 284 F.3d 293 (1st Cir.) (earlier FTCA case identifying LCHC physician as federal employee)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (administrative exhaustion requirement under FTCA)