Grunwald v. Mencia

Background

Esther Grunwald sued as the mother and natural guardian of T.G., an infant, and individually. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act against multiple defendants, including the United States. The claims alleged medical negligence involving fetal monitoring, the timing of delivery, and efforts to prevent injuries to T.G. The plaintiffs also asserted lack of informed consent and loss of consortium.

Before filing suit, Grunwald submitted an administrative claim to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The claim described alleged failures to monitor labor and deliver T.G. promptly in response to concerning fetal-monitoring results. The court interpreted that filing as asserting medical malpractice, but noted that it did not assert claims for lack of informed consent or loss of consortium. HHS denied the administrative claim in March 2018.

Legal standards

The Federal Tort Claims Act requires a claimant to submit an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency and receive a denial before filing suit. The court treated this requirement as jurisdictional, meaning that failure to satisfy it prevents the court from hearing the claim.

The court also applied Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Legal conclusions and conclusory statements are not enough.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed both challenged claims under Rule 12(b)(1) because the plaintiffs had not included them in their administrative claim. The court concluded that this failure prevented the plaintiffs from pursuing those claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

The court separately addressed the substance of the claims under New York law. For informed consent, a plaintiff must allege that the medical provider failed to disclose relevant alternatives and reasonably foreseeable risks, that a reasonably prudent patient would not have undergone the treatment if fully informed, and that the lack of informed consent caused the injury. The court found that the complaint merely alleged, in conclusory terms, that the defendants failed to obtain informed consent and did not provide facts supporting those required elements. The court therefore also dismissed that claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

For loss of consortium, the court explained that New York generally recognizes the claim for a spouse’s loss arising from injury to the other spouse. It further stated that New York does not recognize a child’s loss of parental consortium or a parent’s loss of a child’s affection, companionship, or society. The court therefore dismissed the plaintiffs’ loss-of-consortium claim under Rule 12(b)(1), in addition to relying on the failure to include it in the administrative claim.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the United States’ motion. The plaintiffs’ claims for lack of informed consent and loss of consortium were dismissed. The court stated that the only remaining claim was the alleged medical-malpractice claim and directed the parties to submit a case-management plan by May 20, 2020.