F. M. v. United States

Background

F.M., a minor, and Teiana Morales, her mother and natural guardian, brought claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). They alleged negligence and/or medical malpractice involving medical treatment provided to F.M. at certain federal health care facilities from approximately May 20, 2015, through April 13, 2022. They alleged that medical providers failed to properly care for and diagnose F.M.’s keratoconus, causing permanent eye injuries, including blindness. Morales also claimed loss of services, lost compensation, and medical expenses.

The United States moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Its motion sought partial dismissal of claims based on treatment after May 2019. The United States argued that F.M. and Morales had not adequately presented those claims to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) before filing suit.

The opinion also notes that the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of certain claims and defendants, but the ruling addressed the United States’ motion for partial dismissal based on the FTCA’s presentment requirement.

Legal Standard

The FTCA waives the United States’ immunity from certain tort lawsuits, but generally requires a claimant to first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency. This requirement is jurisdictional, meaning that failure to satisfy it can prevent a federal court from hearing the claim.

The court explained that presentment requires notice, not proof. The administrative claim must contain enough detail to allow the agency to investigate the claim and estimate its value. Simply filing a standard administrative claim form is not necessarily enough.

Court’s Analysis

F.M. and Morales submitted a Standard Form 95 to HHS on May 17, 2022. The form described a failure to diagnose or repeated misdiagnosis of F.M.’s keratoconus from approximately 2014 through April or May 2019. It also stated that F.M. was diagnosed with keratoconus on or about May 3, 2022, and that the condition had caused irreparable eye damage, substantial loss of vision, and a risk of complete blindness. The form also identified Morales’ loss-of-services claim.

The court concluded that the May 3, 2022 diagnosis date gave HHS sufficient notice that the alleged misdiagnosis continued after May 2019 and through May 2022. The court reasoned that HHS had an opportunity to investigate F.M.’s treatment during the entire relevant period, including the treatment through April 13, 2022 alleged in the complaint.

The court rejected the United States’ reliance on a case in which an administrative claim identified only earlier years and gave the agency no indication that negligence continued later. The court found that this case was different because F.M. and Morales included the later diagnosis date and described the continuing failure to diagnose the condition.

The court also rejected the argument that F.M. and Morales had to notify HHS again after agency letters described the claim as ending in April or May 2019. Because the Standard Form 95 already contained sufficiently detailed information, the court found no additional notice was required.

Disposition

The court concluded that F.M. and Morales satisfied the FTCA’s presentment requirement for claims alleging liability from May 20, 2015, through April 13, 2022. It therefore denied the United States’ motion for partial dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.