Washington v. Department Of The Navy, 446 F.Supp.3d 20

Background:

Kenneth Washington, a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune (1979–1981; 1983–1984), used base water; his wife suffered miscarriages (1980, 1981) and gave birth in 1982 to a son who died after 32 minutes.
In 2008 the Navy notified Washington that Camp Lejeune's water had been contaminated; he then submitted one or two Standard Form 95 administrative claims (one allegedly lost; another stamped received May 2010) asserting wrongful death from exposure to TCE/PCE.
The Navy denied compensation under the FTCA in January 2019; Washington filed suit in June 2019 on behalf of his deceased son for wrongful death and IIED under the FTCA.
The United States moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies for a wrongful-death claim and (2) that the FTCA discretionary-function exception bars jurisdiction.
The complaint alleges the Navy caused/allowed toxic chemicals into the water, failed to monitor and heed warnings, failed to warn residents, and withheld information; plaintiff relies in part on BUMED 6240.3 directives.
The Court denied the motion to dismiss, holding Washington presented a sufficient administrative claim and that the discretionary-function exception did not apply.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Administrative exhaustion: Was an SF-95 sufficient to present a wrongful-death FTCA claim on behalf of the decedent?	Washington: SF-95 (received May 2010) plainly alleged wrongful death, demanded a sum certain, and gave the Navy notice to investigate; father could file pre-appointment and appointment relates back.	Navy: SF-95 did not explicitly say "on behalf of" the decedent; Washington was not yet appointed administrator when he filed.	Court: SF-95 provided sufficient notice and sum certain; father could properly present the death claim and later appointment relates back under state law—presentation requirement satisfied.
Discretionary-function exception: Do BUMED directives or other law mandate conduct such that the exception is inapplicable?	Washington: BUMED 6240.3 contains a specific, non‑discretionary proscription—hazardous or unknown-effect substances shall not be introduced so as to reach consumers—so the exception does not shield the government; alleged decades‑long neglect is not policy‑based.	Navy: Decisions about water management, chemicals (TCE/PCE), remediation, and resource allocation involve discretion and policy choices protected by the exception; no regulation specifically mandated action with respect to TCE/PCE at the time.	Court: BUMED contains a sufficiently specific mandatory prohibition against introducing deleterious or unknown substances into drinking water; the conduct challenged was neglect (not protected policy choices); discretionary‑function exception does not apply.

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 1995) (FTCA jurisdictional requirements and discretionary‑function principles)
Henderson v. United States, 785 F.2d 121 (4th Cir. 1986) (administrative‑claim filing is jurisdictional under FTCA)
Rich v. United States, 811 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2015) (discretionary‑function exception inapplicable to government inattention/neglect)
Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531 (1988) (two‑step test for discretionary‑function exception)
United States v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315 (1991) (policy‑based inquiry for discretionary‑function analysis)
Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, 842 F.3d 853 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying Berkovitz/Gaubert framework)
Ahmed v. United States, 30 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 1994) (requirements for presentation of administrative FTCA claims)
Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (caution against invoking national‑security labels to bar claims)
Coulthurst v. United States, 214 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2000) (policy analysis may be inapplicable where government neglect, not policy choices, are alleged)
Wood v. United States, 845 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 2017) (discretionary‑function protection for high‑level policy decisions)