Nguyen v. United States

Background

Trang Nguyen sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a law that allows certain claims for injury caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. The lawsuit arose from a July 2, 2019 automobile collision involving Officer Russell Hurley of the Hoopa Valley Tribal Police. The opinion states that Hurley’s patrol car struck Nguyen’s vehicle from behind, causing it to hit a vehicle driven by Gary Lee Nicholson. Nguyen alleged injuries involving her head, neck, upper back, arms, and legs, along with physical disabilities, restricted movement, pain, and emotional and psychological symptoms.

Motion and Parties’ Arguments

On April 28, 2022, Nguyen moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2675 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) for permission to increase the amount of her claim from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000. She argued that her surgeries and the resulting information about her injuries were newly discovered evidence that was not reasonably discoverable when she presented her original claim to the government.

The United States opposed the motion. It argued that Nguyen’s elbow condition had been known and diagnosed as early as May 2019 and that her knee condition had been known and diagnosed as early as December 2019. The government cited a medical record stating that her physician had discussed the possible need for arthroscopic knee surgery. Nguyen responded that the physician’s record only mentioned surgery as a possibility if conservative treatment did not work and did not expressly tell Nguyen to consider surgery.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b), a plaintiff generally may not seek more money in court than the amount presented to the relevant federal agency. An increased amount may be allowed if it is based on newly discovered evidence that was not reasonably discoverable when the administrative claim was presented, or on intervening facts related to the amount of the claim.

The court stated that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that an exception applies. It applied an objective standard requiring reasonable diligence, rather than asking only whether the later developments were expected or anticipated.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Nguyen had not shown either that her condition worsened after she submitted the $2,000,000 claim or that new information about the true nature and extent of her injuries became available afterward in a way that was not previously reasonably discoverable. The court noted that Nguyen had chosen an initial course of conservative treatment after consulting with her medical providers. It found that her argument focused on what she could not reasonably have expected or anticipated, rather than on what could not reasonably have been discovered through diligence.

The court also rejected Nguyen’s reliance on Rule 6(b). It stated that Nguyen had provided no authority showing that Rule 6(b)’s general provisions for computing or extending time allowed the court to replace the specific diligence requirement in § 2675(b) with a general good-cause standard. The court additionally noted that fact discovery had already closed.

Disposition

The court found that Nguyen had not carried her burden under § 2675(b) and denied her motion seeking leave to increase the amount of her claim. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.