Kuklok v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Background

Brendan Kuklok, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He alleged that the VA disclosed his private medical records to the North Dakota Workers’ Compensation Bureau in 1982, 1987, and 1988 in connection with his workers’ compensation claim. He also alleged that the VA failed to assist him with benefits and mishandled records, causing delays in benefits or other entitlements.

The third amended complaint asserted four claims: violation of the Privacy Act, a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), violation of California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act through the FTCA, and breach of fiduciary duty. The VA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which challenges subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Privacy Act claim

The court held that the Privacy Act claim was untimely. The Act generally requires a lawsuit to be filed within two years after the claim arises, and the court concluded that Kuklok knew or should have known about the alleged disclosure at least by 1995. He filed this lawsuit in 2019.

The court also rejected equitable tolling, a doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in extraordinary circumstances. Although Kuklok identified serious medical conditions and alleged that they made it difficult to understand, prepare, and file legal claims, the court found those allegations conclusory. The complaint did not provide enough detail about how his conditions prevented him from timely filing the claim for more than 20 years. The Privacy Act claim was dismissed with prejudice.

FTCA claims

The court dismissed the two FTCA-based claims with prejudice. The FTCA generally requires a claimant to present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues. The court concluded that Kuklok knew or should have known about the alleged records disclosure by at least 1995, but he did not submit his administrative claim to the VA until November 23, 2018.

The court also rejected equitable tolling for these claims for the same reasons it rejected tolling for the Privacy Act claim. The court noted that Kuklok referred in his opposition to events in January 2017, but the third amended complaint did not allege what happened then. The court further stated that a January 2018 VA rating decision about missing records did not establish that the VA had improperly disclosed medical records to the workers’ compensation bureau.

Breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim

The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Under the FTCA, a claimant must first submit an administrative claim that gives the agency enough information to investigate the alleged injury. Kuklok’s administrative claim stated that the VA had interfered with entitlements and caused loss of benefits, but it did not identify which benefits or entitlements were involved or when the alleged loss occurred.

The court found that this information did not provide the VA with the required minimal notice. It therefore did not reach the VA’s separate argument that Kuklok had not identified a legally recognized fiduciary relationship. The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling if Kuklok exhausted his administrative remedies as to this claim. The court cautioned that any claim based on a delay in entitlements between 1982 and 1989 appeared untimely under the FTCA’s two-year deadline.

Disposition

The court granted the VA’s motion to dismiss. The first, second, and third claims were dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim was granted without prejudice to refiling if Kuklok exhausted his administrative remedies. The Clerk was directed to close the case.