Rollo-Carlson v. United States

Background

Jeremiah Flackus-Carlson, a United States Army veteran, died from an opiate overdose in October 2015. His mother, Cynthia Rollo-Carlson, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging that negligent psychiatric care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs through the VA Health Care System in St. Cloud, Minnesota, caused or contributed to his death. Cynthia brought the action as trustee for Jeremiah.

The FTCA permits certain tort claims against the United States, but requires a claimant to first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency. The agency must then deny the claim in writing or fail to make a final decision within six months. Under the governing regulation, presentment must include written notice of the incident, a specific amount of money damages, and the signer’s legal capacity together with evidence of authority to act for the claim’s beneficiaries.

The court relied on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Mader v. United States, which held that presenting evidence of a personal representative’s authority is a jurisdictional precondition to filing an FTCA lawsuit. In this case, Minnesota’s wrongful-death statute required a court-appointed trustee to maintain the wrongful-death action.

Administrative Claim and Jurisdictional Challenge

Cynthia and her husband submitted a Standard Form 95 to the VA on September 5, 2017. The form identified the claimants as “Cynthia and Doug Carlson” and described a wrongful-death medical-malpractice claim, valued at $10 million. Their attorney, Brian Lewis, signed the form and attached a letter stating that he represented them in pursuing their son’s wrongful-death claim.

It was undisputed that the submission did not include proof that Cynthia had been appointed trustee. Cynthia was appointed trustee by the Benton County District Court on October 2, 2018. She filed this case the next day, October 3, 2018. The court concluded that she therefore had authority to act as trustee when she filed suit, but had not presented evidence of that authority to the VA before filing the action.

The United States challenged subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows a defendant to contest the court’s authority to hear a case. The Government treated its motion as a factual challenge, allowing the court to consider materials outside the complaint and determine whether the FTCA’s presentment requirement was actually satisfied.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

Cynthia argued that Minnesota’s Tort Claims Act allowed an administrative claim to be presented by next of kin and that a trustee did not need to be appointed until the lawsuit began. The court rejected that argument because Cynthia claimed authority under Minnesota’s wrongful-death statute, not the Minnesota Tort Claims Act. Under the wrongful-death statute, being next of kin made someone eligible to seek appointment as trustee but did not itself give that person authority to prosecute the claim.

Cynthia also argued that the VA had actual notice of her authority because it granted her application for burial benefits, responded to her request for Jeremiah’s medical records, and possessed a death certificate identifying Jeremiah as single and never married. The court held that this information showed, at most, her relationship to Jeremiah; it did not show that she had been appointed trustee.

The court also rejected Cynthia’s reliance on a decision from another district within the Eighth Circuit because that decision did not address the evidence-of-authority issue and relied on precedent later superseded by Mader. Finally, the court rejected her arguments based on collateral estoppel and judicial estoppel. The VA had not previously decided that her evidence of authority was sufficient, nor had it taken a position in an earlier proceeding that would prevent the Government from raising the issue.

Ruling

The court emphasized that the Government’s motion concerned only compliance with the FTCA’s administrative-presentment requirement, not the merits of Cynthia’s allegation that the VA provided negligent or inadequate psychiatric care. Because Cynthia did not present evidence of her trustee authority to the VA before filing suit, the court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

Although the Government sought dismissal with prejudice, Judge Eric C. Tostrud explained that a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is ordinarily without prejudice because the court lacks power to decide the merits. The order granted the Government’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Cynthia’s action in its entirety without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorney fees.