2015-Ohio-2237
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff (Allen D. Sweatt) received two Botox injections at a VA Medical Center on June 15, 2012 for Frey’s Syndrome and alleges the injections were negligently prepared/administered, causing excessive pain.
- Plaintiff filed an administrative tort claim with the VA on November 12, 2012; the VA denied the claim and issued a final denial letter dated September 24, 2013.
- Plaintiff sought reconsideration, which was denied, and the VA informed him that he could file suit under the FTCA in federal court within six months of the final denial.
- Plaintiff filed a civil complaint that the Clerk received on April 30, 2014 (officially docketed June 10, 2014), which was more than six months after the VA’s September 24, 2013 final denial.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on the FTCA’s exhaustion and six-month filing requirement. Plaintiff did not meaningfully contest timeliness in his opposition.
- The Court concluded the complaint was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the suit was timely under the FTCA’s requirement to file in district court within six months of the agency’s final denial | Plaintiff did not argue that the suit was timely; correspondence to the Court argued for instructions on appeal but was not a complaint or tolling filing | The complaint was filed more than six months after the VA’s September 24, 2013 final denial and therefore barred by § 2401(b); court lacks jurisdiction | Court held the complaint was untimely and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (United States is immune from suit unless consented by statute)
- Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (FTCA as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity)
- M.J. ex rel. Jarvis v. Georgetown Univ. Med. Ctr., 962 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 2013) (describing FTCA presentation and six‑month filing rule under § 2401(b))
- FDIC v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (untimely response arguments may be treated as conceded)