Wilson v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
3:19-cv-02104
| D. Or. | Dec 18, 2020Background:
- Plaintiff Mary E. Wilson alleges VA medical personnel failed to timely disclose her husband John Wilson’s liver cancer, contributing to his death on October 31, 2012.
- Wilson contacted an attorney within a month of her husband’s death, indicating she was aware of a potential tort claim by November 2012.
- Under the FTCA, a tort claim must be presented to the agency within two years of accrual; Wilson did not present an FTCA claim until June 2017, which the VA denied as untimely on September 10, 2018.
- The VA’s denial letter informed Wilson she had six months to file suit in federal court; she filed this action on December 30, 2019, after that six‑month period.
- Wilson pointed to a separate 38 U.S.C. § 1151 claim filed in December 2015; the court held § 1151 relief is different from FTCA relief and, even if it provided notice, it was filed after the FTCA limitations period had expired.
- The United States moved to dismiss for failure to meet FTCA time limits (and alternatively that Wilson is not a proper party); the court dismissed with prejudice on statute‑of‑limitations grounds and did not reach the alternative party argument.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson timely presented an FTCA claim to the VA (2‑year presentation rule) | Wilson implied later accrual / reliance on other VA filings (e.g., §1151) to justify delay | Claim accrued by husband's death (Nov 2012); Wilson knew of potential claim; she had until Nov 2014 to present it but did not until June 2017 | Held: Presentation was untimely; FTCA claim barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) |
| Whether Wilson timely filed suit after VA’s final denial (6‑month suit deadline) | Wilson argued various procedural filings and communications could affect timeliness | VA mailed final denial Sept 2018; Wilson had six months (until Mar 2019) to sue but filed Dec 2019 | Held: Suit was filed after the six‑month deadline and is time‑barred |
| Whether the §1151 filing or other documents tolled/accrued FTCA deadlines or provided adequate notice | §1151 filing and other submissions could constitute notice or affect accrual | §1151 relief differs from FTCA; §1151 claim was filed Dec 2015—after FTCA period had run—so it does not cure untimeliness | Held: §1151 filing does not save FTCA claim; timeliness defect remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Airgas USA, LLC, 435 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (D. Or. 2019) (statute‑of‑limitations dismissal on the face of the complaint standard)
- Huynh v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 465 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2006) (statute‑of‑limitations dismissal on the face of the complaint standard)
- Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1983) (accrual rule for medical‑negligence claims: accrues when patient is or should be aware of worsening condition)
- Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing §1151 benefits claims from FTCA tort claims)