Sorrell v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs
2:16-cv-03802
| D. Ariz. | Apr 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (pro se) is a veteran diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger fingers by non-VA doctors and sought VA disability benefits; a 2013 VA exam found the conditions not service-related and denied benefits.
- In March 2015 Plaintiff filed an administrative FTCA tort claim for $800,000; the VA denied it and denied reconsideration in January 2017.
- Plaintiff previously filed a state-court medical malpractice action against the VA in 2015 that was removed and dismissed because tort claims against the United States belong in federal court.
- Plaintiff filed the present federal suit in November 2016 asserting (1) review of the VA’s denial of disability benefits and (2) a medical malpractice claim under the FTCA.
- The VA moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over benefits claims (invoking the VJRA/38 U.S.C. § 511) and for a more definite statement as to any FTCA malpractice claim; it also requested Plaintiff comply with Arizona’s expert affidavit statute A.R.S. § 12-2603.
- The court granted the motion: it dismissed any claim seeking review of the VA’s benefits denial for lack of jurisdiction, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended FTCA complaint (if any) and to provide the A.R.S. § 12-2603 expert disclosure by set deadlines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court has jurisdiction to review VA benefits denial | Sorrell seeks review and a 100% disability rating plus retroactive benefits | VA argues VJRA/38 U.S.C. § 511 bars district-court review of benefits decisions | Court: No jurisdiction; benefits decisions are committed to Secretary and not reviewable by district courts |
| Whether the FTCA malpractice claim is sufficiently pleaded | Sorrell alleges VA misdiagnosed/failures to refer caused injury | VA contends the complaint is vague, conflates benefits exam with medical care, and fails Rule 8 plausibility | Court: Complaint is too vague; ordered a more definite amended complaint limited to FTCA claims not requiring benefits-review |
| Proper defendant under FTCA | Plaintiff sued the Department of Veterans Affairs | VA argues FTCA claims must name the United States, not an agency | Court: Directs Plaintiff to name only the United States in any amended FTCA claim |
| Applicability of Arizona expert-affidavit requirement | Sorrell did not provide A.R.S. § 12-2603 expert opinion yet but planned to after disclosures | VA requests compliance before scheduling conference | Court: Arizona expert-opinion requirement applies to FTCA malpractice claims; ordered compliance by deadline |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
- Recinto v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 706 F.3d 1171 (district courts lack authority to review VA benefits decisions)
- Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (VJRA limits judicial review of VA benefits decisions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and factual plausibility)
- Landers v. Quality Commc’ns, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (labels-and-conclusions insufficient under Rule 8)