Hassay v. United States

Background

Aaron Hassay sued the United States. The opinion text does not describe the underlying claims. The parties filed a stipulated settlement and proposed dismissal, stating that they wanted to avoid further litigation and resolve all claims and issues raised or that could have been raised in the case before the settlement agreement was executed.

Settlement terms

The United States agreed to pay Hassay $76,000 in full settlement of the covered claims. The agreement also states that the United States will make good-faith efforts to facilitate a referral for Hassay, consistent with federal laws and regulations, for mental-health treatment through the Veterans Affairs Community Care program. The agreement expressly says that this is not a guarantee that Hassay will be found eligible for that treatment.

Hassay agreed to release the United States, as defined in the agreement to include specified current and former agents, employees, attorneys, and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and its specified current and former personnel, from claims arising from the subject matter of the case. The release includes known and unknown claims and includes certain future claims. The agreement states that the settlement is not an admission of liability or fault by the United States, which denied liability. The parties agreed to bear their own fees, costs, and expenses.

The agreement provides that payment will be made by check to Aaron Hassay through his attorneys. It states that payment is expected within 90 days after execution by all parties but could take longer to process. It also addresses tax reporting, possible offsets for debts owed to the United States, and Hassay’s responsibility for outstanding medical-treatment liens. The agreement states that disputes concerning it may be brought in the Northern District of California and that Judge Kandis A. Westmore will retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.

Court action and result

The parties agreed that execution of the stipulation and court approval would constitute dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). On August 14, 2020, Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered, pursuant to the stipulation, that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The opinion text does not report a decision on the merits of the underlying claims.