Stewart v. VA Medical Center

Background

William-Bullock Stewart sued the Palo Alto VA Medical Center and 85 individual employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. He alleged that, after being admitted for gastric bypass surgery on August 15, 2021, he was misdiagnosed with a respiratory problem while sleeping, intubated and placed on a respirator without his consent, given drugs that paralyzed him, and restrained. He characterized the treatment as medical malpractice, battery, false imprisonment, emotional distress, and related violations.

The complaint did not identify separate causes of action, state the elements of particular claims, or explain what each individual defendant allegedly did. Stewart later filed a First Amended Complaint without court permission or the defendants’ consent and after the deadline for amending as of right. The court declined to consider that amended pleading.

Substitution of the United States

The Government argued that Stewart’s allegations were tort claims arising from actions by federal employees within the scope of their employment. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States is generally the sole defendant for such claims, and the federal employees receive immunity from common-law tort claims arising from their official duties. The Government submitted an Attorney General’s certification stating that the individual defendants acted within the scope of their employment.

The court granted the Government’s motion to substitute the United States for all named defendants. It explained that the certification did not require notice to or consent from the individual defendants and that, after substitution, the United States was the single defendant remaining in the case.

The court denied Stewart’s motion for leave to file a brief opposing the U.S. Attorney’s representation of the individual defendants and denied his motion to strike the pleadings filed by the U.S. Attorney. The opinion does not state a separate disposition for Stewart’s motion concerning the page length of his First Amended Complaint; it states that the court declined to consider that pleading.

Federal Tort Claims Act administrative requirement

The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Government argued that Stewart had not met the Federal Tort Claims Act’s requirement that a claimant first present an administrative tort claim to the appropriate federal agency and wait for a written denial or six months without a final agency decision.

The Government submitted a declaration from Ilsa Martinez stating that a search of the VA’s administrative tort-claim database found no record that Stewart or anyone representing him had filed such a claim. Stewart submitted part of a Standard Form 95 and evidence relating to mailing, arguing that mailing the form established that he had satisfied the requirement.

The court rejected that argument. It held that the mailbox rule did not establish receipt of an administrative claim under these circumstances and that the Government’s evidence of non-receipt was sufficient. Because Stewart did not establish that he had completed the required administrative process, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his claim.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olgui granted the Government’s motion in full and dismissed the case with prejudice. The dismissal was based on the jurisdictional requirement that Stewart first present an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, not on a decision about whether the alleged medical treatment was actually wrongful.