W. v. GARDNER FAMILY HEALTH NETWORK

Background

M. W., a minor, was evaluated by Dr. Danielle Dukellis at Gardner Health Services in July 2023 for right-knee pain and was diagnosed with Osgood-Schlatter’s disease. After a later fall, treatment, and physical therapy, M. W. returned to Gardner in March 2024 and was diagnosed with slipped capital femoral epiphysis. M. W. alleged that Drs. Dukellis and David Feldman, Gardner, and Good Samaritan Hospital provided wrongful care that caused pain, suffering, delayed diagnosis, and a prolonged course of treatment.

M. W. sued Dr. Dukellis and Gardner as federal defendants and Dr. Feldman and Good Samaritan Hospital as private defendants in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The case was removed to federal court. Good Samaritan Hospital and Dr. Dukellis had been dismissed before removal. Gardner then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that M. W. had not exhausted the administrative claim requirement under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Administrative-Claim Requirement

Before bringing an action for money damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claimant must present the claim to the appropriate federal agency. The court stated that the claim must include a written description of the injury sufficient to allow an investigation and a specific amount of damages, known as a “sum certain.”

The parties agreed that M. W. did not directly begin an administrative proceeding with the appropriate federal agency because M. W. was unaware that Gardner and Dr. Dukellis were affiliated with the federal government. They also agreed that M. W. had served Gardner with a notice required by California law before filing suit. The court held that this notice described the alleged injuries but did not state a specific dollar amount. It therefore did not satisfy the Federal Tort Claims Act’s administrative-claim requirement. The court did not address whether the notice also failed to provide adequate notice to the federal agency for investigation.

Other Claims and Jurisdiction

The court denied as moot the motion to dismiss Dr. Dukellis because the claims against her had already been dismissed. It also denied as moot Gardner’s request to substitute the United States for Gardner because the court had granted Gardner’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was ordered to terminate Gardner and Dr. Dukellis as defendants.

The court determined that Dr. Feldman was the only remaining defendant and that professional negligence was the only remaining claim. Because the complaint alleged that both M. W. and Dr. Feldman were California citizens, the court found no diversity jurisdiction. It also found no federal-question jurisdiction. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara.

Disposition

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted Gardner Family Health Network’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims against Gardner with prejudice because amendment would not cure the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court denied as moot the motion to dismiss Dr. Dukellis and Gardner’s request for substitution, and remanded the remaining action to state court.