Kuklok v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

Background

Brendan Kuklok, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The VA moved to dismiss Kuklok’s third amended complaint. On July 20, 2020, the court granted that motion, dismissed the first three claims with prejudice, and dismissed the fourth claim—breach of fiduciary duty—without prejudice if Kuklok exhausted his administrative remedies. The court entered judgment the same day.

The earlier order addressed claims concerning the Privacy Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act, California’s Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court previously ruled that the Privacy Act, Federal Tort Claims Act, and California medical-information claims were untimely because Kuklok sued at least 24 years after he became aware or should have become aware of the alleged disclosure of his medical records. The court also ruled that the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim could not proceed because Kuklok had not exhausted his administrative remedies for that claim.

Motion for reconsideration

Kuklok moved for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) and (6). He argued that the July 20 order contained a clear factual error, that his medical conditions supported equitable tolling of the filing deadline, and that the court had misapplied the law to the facts alleged in his complaint. He also challenged the court’s conclusion that his administrative claim did not adequately notify the VA of the injury underlying his breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. Under Rule 59(e), it generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or another reason justifying relief. The court also stated that reconsideration cannot be used to present arguments or evidence that could reasonably have been presented earlier or simply to reargue issues the court already decided.

Ruling

The court found that Kuklok’s motion attempted to relitigate the issues resolved in the July 20 order. Regarding the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, the court stated that Kuklok’s argument about denied and delayed benefits addressed the merits of the claim but did not show clear error in the finding that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

The court concluded that Kuklok had not shown that relief was appropriate under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). It therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.