Schwartz v. James J. Peters VA Medical Center
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-07846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Arnold Schwartz v. United States, Judge Broderick dismissed FTCA claims because Schwartz did not adequately present them to the agency first.
Arnold Schwartz’s Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the James J. Peters VA Medical Center were dismissed after the United States was substituted as the defendant. The court did not decide the underlying medical-malpractice or negligent-hiring allegations.
What happened
Arnold Schwartz v. United States involved Schwartz’s claims that the James J. Peters VA Medical Center provided negligent medical care and negligently hired medical staff. He brought the claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows certain lawsuits for injuries caused by federal employees’ negligence.
Schwartz’s administrative claim described a fall caused by a loose bed frame and sought $5 million. His later complaint instead alleged negligent medical treatment and negligent hiring, seeking $10 million for each claim. The United States moved to dismiss and to replace the VA medical center as the defendant.
The court granted the motion to substitute the United States and granted the motion to dismiss because Schwartz had not adequately presented his medical-malpractice and negligent-hiring claims to the agency before suing. Judge Vernon S. Broderick closed the case.
The detailed version
- Schwartz v. James J. Peters VA Medical Center · No. 1:19-cv-07846
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
Arnold Schwartz went to the James J. Peters VA Medical Center on May 22, 2018, reporting that he could not empty his bladder. On May 24, 2018, he fell when the metal bed frame came loose as he tried to hold onto it. The opinion states that he suffered a right hip fracture requiring surgery, loss of mobility, a laceration, and altered mental status. He continued receiving care from the VA until July 25, 2018.
Schwartz submitted an administrative claim on Standard Form 95, which the VA received on November 16, 2018. The claim alleged that the VA negligently provided a dangerous condition, supplied a bed with loose frames, failed to maintain and inspect the bed, failed to assess and treat him as a fall risk, and failed to repair the bed. The claim sought $5 million.
Schwartz later filed this lawsuit on August 21, 2019. The complaint asserted medical-malpractice and negligent-hiring claims against the VA. The medical-malpractice claim alleged that the VA’s treatment did not meet acceptable medical standards and that the VA negligently supervised medication and medical care. The negligent-hiring claim alleged that the VA failed to investigate the qualifications and abilities of medical staff, resulting in treatment by staff who lacked the necessary skills. The complaint sought $10 million on each claim.
Motion to Substitute the Defendant
The United States moved to substitute itself for the James J. Peters VA Medical Center and to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not authorize lawsuits against federal agencies. Instead, an action under that statute must be brought against the United States. The court therefore granted the motion to substitute the United States as defendant in place of the VA.
Administrative Exhaustion
The Federal Tort Claims Act generally requires a claimant to first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency and have the claim finally denied before filing suit. The court treated this presentment requirement as jurisdictional and explained that the administrative claim must provide enough information for the agency to investigate the claim and estimate its value.
The court ruled that Schwartz’s Standard Form 95 did not adequately present the claims in his complaint. The form described negligence and premises-related problems involving the loose bed frame and the fall. It did not mention the alleged negligent medical treatment or negligent hiring. Because those claims involved different allegations and elements, the notice did not give the VA enough information to investigate them.
The court also relied on the difference between the amounts sought. The administrative claim valued the bed-frame negligence claim at $5 million, while the complaint sought $10 million for each of the medical-malpractice and negligent-hiring claims. The court concluded that this discrepancy further showed that the claims had not been adequately presented to the agency.
Disposition
The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss Schwartz’s complaint and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The ruling was based on the failure to adequately exhaust the administrative remedies required by the Federal Tort Claims Act; the opinion did not decide whether the alleged medical malpractice or negligent hiring occurred.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.