Young ex rel. J.Y. v. United States
152 F. Supp. 3d 337
D.N.J.2015Background
- Plaintiff Tamika Young alleges medical malpractice during delivery of her child J.Y. at Cooper University Hospital; physicians from CAMcare (an FQHC) and CUH treated her, and the child suffered severe, lifelong injuries.
- Young filed an FTCA administrative claim in 2011 and sued the United States in 2012 after six months elapsed; CAMcare providers are "deemed" PHS employees, so the remedy against the U.S. is exclusive under 42 U.S.C. § 233.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (or alternatively for summary judgment) invoking the New Jersey Charitable Immunities Act (NJCIA): absolute immunity for charities and a damages cap for organizations "organized exclusively for hospital purposes."
- The Government also moved to strike unauthorized sur-replies and sought leave to amend its Answer to assert NJCIA defenses after scheduling deadlines.
- The Court treated absolute-immunity as a jurisdictional 12(b)(1) issue (intertwined with merits) and the damages-cap as a Rule 56 issue, denied absolute immunity, deferred decision on the damages cap pending limited discovery, granted the Motion to Strike, and granted-in-part leave to amend solely to assert the damages-cap defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NJCIA absolute immunity bars FTCA jurisdiction | Young: NJCIA does not shield the U.S.; individual health-care providers are not immune so U.S. cannot claim immunity | Gov't: CAMcare is "organized exclusively for charitable purposes," so absolute immunity applies and divests jurisdiction | Denied — absolute immunity unavailable; treated as jurisdictional 12(b)(1) issue and court finds CAMcare fits "hospital purposes," not absolute charitable immunity |
| Whether NJCIA damages cap applies to CAMcare (limiting recovery) | Young: CAMcare is not a hospital and cap should not apply; late assertion prejudicial | Gov't: Kuchera supports that many modern healthcare centers qualify as "hospital purposes," so cap applies | Denied without prejudice; court permits 45 days limited discovery then renewed Rule 56 briefing on damages cap |
| Procedural propriety of sur-replies | Young/Cooper filed sur-replies without permission | Gov't moved to strike them as unauthorized | Granted — sur-replies struck and not considered |
| Leave to amend Answer to plead NJCIA defenses after scheduling deadline | Young/Cooper: prejudice and untimeliness | Gov't: good cause/excusable neglect after reassessment post-Kuchera; seeks to preserve defenses | Granted-in-part — leave to amend to assert damages-cap defense only; denied to assert absolute-immunity defense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (Sup. Ct.) (federal court always may decide its own jurisdiction)
- CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.) (FTCA jurisdictional elements and when merits intertwine with jurisdiction)
- Lomando v. United States, 667 F.3d 363 (3d Cir.) (United States may invoke NJCIA defenses applicable to similarly situated private employers; effect of "deemed" federal employee status)
- Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (3d Cir.) (healthcare workers at private clinics are not federal employees in the usual sense)
- Kuchera v. Jersey Shore Family Health Ctr., 221 N.J. 239 (N.J. 2015) (defines modern "hospital purposes," narrows absolute immunity and expands applicability of NJCIA damages cap)