Diakite v. United States of America

Background

Wakari Diakite sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law that permits certain claims for money damages based on negligent acts by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Diakite alleged that he received treatment at BronxCare Hospital Center, formerly known as Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center, from June 30, 2021, through August 3, 2021, and developed a sacral decubitus ulcer because of negligent medical care. He sought $1 million in damages.

Before filing suit, Diakite submitted an administrative claim to the Department of Health and Human Services. The agency denied the claim, stating that the evidence did not establish that his injuries resulted from a negligent act or omission by a federal employee acting within the scope of employment. The opinion states that neither party indicated that Diakite appealed that denial.

The Motion and the Court’s Analysis

The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when a court lacks authority to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court addressed subject-matter jurisdiction first.

The court explained that the Public Health Service Act makes the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for certain medical-malpractice claims involving covered Public Health Service personnel. Health-care entities receiving federal grant funds may receive that protection for services provided within the scope of the federally funded project. But the court relied on a Department of Health and Human Services letter stating that BronxCare’s coverage did not extend to inpatient services, except in limited circumstances involving a physician who followed a patient from one of eight approved health-center delivery sites.

The court found that Diakite was treated as an inpatient at BronxCare, which was not one of the eight approved delivery sites. The court also found that Diakite did not allege that a physician followed him from an approved site to BronxCare to provide inpatient care. Instead, his allegations concerned treatment by physicians, nurses, and staff at BronxCare. The court therefore concluded that the alleged medical malpractice was not covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Diakite argued that the government should be prevented from asserting the lack of coverage because the agency’s denial letter did not identify that issue and allegedly caused him not to sue BronxCare in state court. The court rejected that argument. It explained that equitable estoppel, a doctrine that can sometimes prevent a party from relying on a position after inducing reasonable harmful reliance, could not create subject-matter jurisdiction where none existed. The court also stated that lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the United States’ motion to dismiss. He dismissed Diakite’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), based on the lack of Federal Tort Claims Act coverage for the alleged inpatient treatment at BronxCare. The opinion did not separately decide the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.