Brewster v. United States

Background

Craig and Jean Brewster’s original complaint named only the United States and alleged that Craig Brewster’s cardiac care at a Veterans Administration hospital was mishandled. The proposed amended complaint continued to assert claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. It also sought to add negligence claims against Dr. Herbert Ward and University of Minnesota Physicians. The proposed complaint alleged that Dr. Ward negligently provided and oversaw Craig Brewster’s post-operative care in April 2014, causing him to suffer a stroke, and that University of Minnesota Physicians was responsible for Dr. Ward’s alleged negligence.

The government did not oppose adding details or the claims against the United States. It opposed adding the claims against Dr. Ward and University of Minnesota Physicians, arguing that those claims were futile because the statute of limitations had expired.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows a party to amend a complaint with the court’s permission. A court may deny permission when the proposed amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile if the proposed claims could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Analysis

The court considered the government’s statute-of-limitations arguments even though Dr. Ward and University of Minnesota Physicians were not yet defendants. It reasoned that those parties would almost certainly raise the same arguments if the amendment were allowed and they were later served with the amended complaint.

The court applied Minnesota Statutes section 541.076(b), which provides a four-year limitations period for a patient’s medical-malpractice action against a health-care provider. The court concluded that the proposed claims were based on alleged conduct occurring in April 2014 and that the complaint did not allege that Dr. Ward treated Craig Brewster after that month. The claims therefore accrued, at the latest, by the end of April 2014, and the four-year period expired in April 2018. The Brewsters did not file this action until January 2019.

The Brewsters argued that the limitations period should be equitably tolled because they pursued an administrative claim against the Veterans Administration. The court rejected that argument. It found no allegations that Dr. Ward or University of Minnesota Physicians fraudulently concealed the alleged malpractice, and no facts showing a continuing course of treatment that would delay accrual under Minnesota’s termination-of-treatment rule. The court also noted that the Brewsters did not claim they were legally barred from bringing state-law claims while their administrative claim against the government was pending.

Ruling

In Brewster v. United States, Judge Katherine Menendez denied the motion to amend in part and granted it in part. The amended complaint could be filed, and the Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the United States would go forward. The proposed negligence claims against Dr. Ward and University of Minnesota Physicians were not allowed because the court concluded they were barred by the statute of limitations. The court directed the parties to confer about scheduling a conference concerning the remaining claim against the United States.