Fiorito v. United States

Background

Michael Fiorito, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States for money damages. He alleged that officials at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, failed to provide adequate treatment for problems involving his hip, wrist, hand, ankle, bladder, urinary system, arthritis, and feet. He initially filed the lawsuit in state court under Minnesota law. The United States removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss. Fiorito moved to send the case back to state court.

Federal Tort Claims Act

The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act is the limited waiver of the federal government’s immunity for certain injuries caused by negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. It also provides the exclusive remedy for covered claims. Therefore, claims seeking relief from the United States for the alleged conduct could proceed only in federal court through the Federal Tort Claims Act, even though Minnesota substantive law governed whether the alleged conduct was wrongful.

Medical-malpractice and negligence claims

Fiorito’s principal claims were medical malpractice and related negligence claims. Under Minnesota Statutes section 145.682, a claimant bringing a medical-malpractice claim requiring expert testimony must serve an expert-review affidavit. After a written demand, the claimant has 60 days to provide it; failure to do so requires dismissal with prejudice of the claims covered by the statute.

The court held that the affidavit requirement applied. It rejected Fiorito’s argument that the requirement was merely procedural and could not be applied in federal court, explaining that binding Eighth Circuit decisions had applied it to malpractice claims in federal court. The court also rejected the argument that the alleged medical deficiencies were obvious enough to avoid expert testimony. Determining whether different medication or more aggressive treatment was required would require expert testimony.

The United States demanded the affidavit on December 21, 2022, and Fiorito did not serve a compliant affidavit within 60 days. The court therefore dismissed with prejudice his claims for medical malpractice, negligence, gross negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court said that an affidavit Fiorito later submitted did not satisfy the statute because it did not state that a medical professional had concluded that an FCI-Sandstone official departed from the applicable standard of care and caused injury.

Other claims

Fiorito also mentioned claims for bad faith, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court held that these claims were not governed by the expert-affidavit requirement but were not viable. The alleged conduct did not meet Minnesota’s demanding standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint did not plausibly allege discrimination based on race, religion, or another prohibited factor under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The court also concluded that “bad faith” was not an independent Minnesota cause of action permitting recovery.

The court dismissed each of these remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the statute allowing screening and dismissal of certain claims brought by prisoners. It also noted that Fiorito had sued only the United States, so a constitutional claim under the remedy recognized in Bivens would not provide relief against that defendant.

Disposition

Judge Patrick J. Schiltz ordered that the United States’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED, Fiorito’s motion to remand was DENIED, and the matter was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The court stated that dismissal, rather than remand, was appropriate because the state court lacked jurisdiction over the lawsuit.