Cepeda v. United States
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-05967
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Cepeda v. United States, Judge Cronan denied Cepeda’s request to add an informed-consent claim because she had not presented it to the Veterans Affairs agency.
Yesenia Cepeda’s proposed informed-consent claim against the United States could not be added because the court found that she had not first presented that claim to the Veterans Affairs agency. The ruling concerned the requested amendment, not the merits of her existing medical-malpractice allegations.
What happened
In Cepeda v. United States, Yesenia Cepeda sued the United States over alleged medical malpractice connected to breast-reduction surgery at a Veterans Affairs medical center. She asked to add a claim that providers failed to tell her about the surgery’s participants and scarring risks.
Cepeda’s administrative claim to the Veterans Affairs agency described scarring, breast size, pain, and other problems after surgery. It did not describe any pre-surgery communications or allege that providers failed to disclose risks, alternatives, or who would perform the operation.
Judge John P. Cronan denied Cepeda’s request for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. He ruled that the proposed claim would be futile because the Federal Tort Claims Act requires a claimant to first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency, and Cepeda had not done so for informed consent.
The detailed version
- Cepeda v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-05967
- John Cronan
- Feb. 9, 2021
Background
Yesenia Cepeda sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging medical malpractice related to bilateral breast-reduction surgery performed at the James J. Peters VA Medical Center in May 2017. Her operative Second Amended Complaint alleged that the surgery and related care caused, among other things, disfiguring scarring, asymmetrical breasts and nipples, and continuing pain.
Cepeda moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for lack of informed consent. The proposed claim concerned information allegedly not provided before surgery, including who would perform the procedure, the involvement of surgical residents, and the risk of scarring.
Administrative Claim and Proposed Amendment
Before filing suit, Cepeda submitted an administrative claim to the Department of Veterans Affairs using Standard Form 95. She described excessive scarring, removal of more breast tissue than desired, reduced breast size, asymmetry, pain, emotional distress, and the need for corrective surgery. The court found that the form did not describe pre-surgery communications with medical providers or allege that providers failed to disclose surgical alternatives, risks, benefits, or participants.
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claimant must first present the claim to the appropriate federal agency before bringing an action against the United States. The court explained that the administrative claim must provide enough information for the agency to investigate the claim and estimate its value. Under New York law, a lack-of-informed-consent claim concerns disclosures made before treatment and also requires proof that a reasonably prudent person would not have undergone the treatment if fully informed.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Cepeda’s administrative claim focused on the results of the surgery, particularly scarring, breast size, pain, and emotional effects. It did not put the Veterans Affairs agency on notice of a claim based on the alleged failure to disclose information before surgery. The court rejected the argument that a medical-malpractice claim automatically includes a lack-of-informed-consent claim or that the agency had to investigate every possible theory of tort liability.
The court also discussed the standards for amending pleadings under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). Because the proposed amendment was futile for lack of administrative exhaustion, the court stated that it did not need to decide whether the scheduling order required a showing of “good cause” or whether the Government would be prejudiced by the amendment.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. The court did not decide the merits of whether the medical providers violated informed-consent requirements. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 102.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.