Puetz v. United States

Background

John Puetz alleged that a surgical team at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Minneapolis injured him during a January 2, 2020, total knee replacement. He alleged that excessive force caused a spiral fracture of his tibia and that the team caused or aggravated plantar fasciitis. Puetz’s orthopedic expert opined that the treatment fell below the applicable standard of care.

Puetz submitted a Federal Tort Claims Act administrative claim to the VA on January 3, 2022. The submission included a Standard Form 95 requesting $100 million and was signed “Jennifer Lohnes/ME.” Michael Eisenberg sent the submission by email. The materials did not include documents showing that Lohnes or Eisenberg had authority to present the claim for Puetz. The VA later denied the claim, and Puetz sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging medical negligence by VA employees, agents, or servants.

Motion and parties’ positions

The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning lack of legal authority for the court to hear the case. It argued that Puetz had not properly presented his administrative claim because he did not provide evidence of the signatories’ authority and because the claim was submitted after the two-year deadline. It also argued that Dr. Sechriest was a contractor rather than a VA employee, and therefore the United States was protected from suit for his alleged conduct. Alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6), the Government argued that Puetz had not adequately alleged that the medical residents and nurses owed him a duty of care.

Puetz argued that the claim was properly signed by his representatives, that evidence of authority was sufficient, and that the claim was timely because the deadline fell on a Sunday following a public holiday. He also argued that Dr. Sechriest was effectively a VA employee and that the Government’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments were not appropriate at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on Eighth Circuit precedent holding that proper presentment—a claimant’s required submission of an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency—is a jurisdictional precondition to an Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit. The governing regulation requires a claim submitted by a representative to identify that person’s legal capacity and include evidence of the representative’s authority. The court held that this requirement applies to attorneys and other representatives, not only to personal representatives in wrongful-death cases.

The court concluded that the submission contained no evidence of either Lohnes’s or Eisenberg’s authority. Lohnes’s signature on the Standard Form 95 was not itself evidence of authority. The court also rejected Puetz’s argument that Lohnes’s prior work on a VA disability-benefits adjustment established authority to submit a personal-injury claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court found that the record did not show that the VA had recognized Lohnes as Puetz’s representative for this type of claim. Eisenberg’s email identified him as an attorney but did not include authorization from Puetz.

The court further held that the VA’s failure to request proof of authority did not waive the requirement. Because the Eighth Circuit requires strict compliance with the administrative-presentment rules, the court found that Puetz’s claim had not been properly presented and that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not decide the Government’s alternative arguments concerning timeliness, Dr. Sechriest’s employment status, or the sufficiency of the allegations against the residents and nurses.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It ordered that Puetz’s Federal Tort Claims Act medical-negligence claim be dismissed without prejudice.