Cepeda v. United States

Background

Yesenia Cepeda alleged that complications followed bilateral breast-reduction surgery performed at the Bronx VA Hospital by Jay Meisner and Michael Ingargiola. She brought a claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and a New York medical-malpractice claim against Ingargiola individually. The United States Attorney certified that Meisner and Ingargiola were federal employees acting within the scope of their employment when they provided medical care. Cepeda removed Meisner as a defendant but continued to name Ingargiola.

The United States moved under Rule 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, to dismiss Ingargiola and substitute the United States as the sole defendant. Cepeda argued that Ingargiola was a contractor rather than a federal employee and requested limited jurisdictional discovery—fact-finding about the employment and scope-of-employment issue.

Legal standard

The Federal Tort Claims Act generally makes the United States the exclusive defendant for tort claims based on negligent or wrongful conduct by a government employee acting within the scope of employment. When the Attorney General certifies that an employee acted within that scope, the United States is substituted for the employee, although a plaintiff may challenge the certification.

The court applied New York law to determine whether Ingargiola acted within the scope of employment. Under that law, the employer must have exercised, or been able to exercise, direct or indirect control over the employee’s activities, and the employee must have acted in furtherance of duties owed to the employer. The plaintiff bears the burden of rebutting the certification with particular facts and, ultimately, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Cepeda did not plead particular facts showing that Ingargiola acted beyond the scope of his employment. First, the Second Amended Complaint alleged that Ingargiola was a resident physician working under the supervision of Meisner, a VA attending physician. The court found that the resident-attending relationship showed VA control and supervision. The allegations also indicated that Ingargiola and Meisner treated Cepeda together during visits and surgery.

Second, the court found that Ingargiola’s conduct was in furtherance of duties owed to the VA because he provided medical care as a physician and surgeon. The court rejected the argument that his contractual connection to the Icahn School of Medicine prevented him from being a federal employee for Federal Tort Claims Act purposes. It explained that the relevant issue was the government’s control over his conduct, and the complaint did not allege that he acted independently. The contract between the VA and the Icahn School also required VA supervision of trainees and placed VA programs under VA’s ultimate control.

The court further rejected Cepeda’s argument that a rule about a resident’s potential liability for following a supervising doctor’s clearly contraindicated orders showed that Ingargiola could be sued individually. The court said that rule concerned how liability might be established, not whether the employee was protected from suit because the conduct occurred within the scope of employment. The court also found that the complaint and cited webpages did not establish that Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. controlled Ingargiola’s work at the VA.

Discovery request and disposition

The court denied jurisdictional discovery because the complaint and record did not suggest that Ingargiola acted outside the scope of his employment. The court concluded that the requested discovery was unlikely to produce facts that would allow Cepeda to withstand the Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and it noted that immunity protections are intended to shield covered employees from the burdens of defending a lawsuit, including discovery.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint against Ingargiola. The court also denied Cepeda’s motion to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The opinion did not decide the truth of Cepeda’s medical-malpractice allegations or the merits of her Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States.