Cummings v. United States, CV 76-53-GF.
| Decision Date | 12 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. CV 76-53-GF.,CV 76-53-GF. |
| Citation | 449 F. Supp. 40 |
| Parties | James N. CUMMINGS, Louise C. Cummings, and Jimmie L. Cummings, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Jack R. Harper, Smith & Harper, Helena, Mont., for plaintiffs.
Lorraine D. Gallinger, Asst. U.S. Atty., Butte, Mont., for defendant.
A motion for summary judgment against the claimants has been granted in this federal tort claims case. This opinion states the reasons.
A claim on Form 95 was filed with the Department of the Air Force stating that the defendant negligently had exposed the plaintiffs to radiation emanating from the United States Air Force Weapons Laboratory near Cascade, Montana. The claim, filed in November 1974, asked for $750,000.00 and stated, over the signature of James N. Cummings:1
My wife and I were living near I-6 in Cascade Montana during the above dates and without any warning of any type by any person or persons I was exposed to electro magnetic radiation which has caused permanent injuries to my central nervous system, digestive system and other body symptons (sic).
There was nothing in the claim which in any way supported the assertion of exposure or causation, and absolutely nothing from which damage could be determined.
The Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2672, specifically provides that each federal agency shall consider and determine tort claims "in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General." The Attorney General, acting under this statutory authority, promulgated regulations.2 These regulations are valid. Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1974). 28 C.F.R. § 14.4 gives each agency the authority to require that a claimant submit evidence relating to the cause of the injury and the damage resulting from it.
The Air Force, acting under the authority of 28 C.F.R. § 14.4, requested additional information as to the facts of the injury and damage. No facts were furnished; no excuses were made; and no additional time was requested within which to act.3
On April 5, 1976, there was before the Air Force nothing other than the claim itself, and on that date the claim was denied and the following explanation given:
This denial is based on a lack of evidence to support any of the allegations raised in the claims. Despite a request to you from Captain Haley, Claims Officer at Malmstrom Air Force Base, you failed to supply the information required to be submitted with the claims by 28 CFR 14.4. Accordingly, there is no way that we can possibly evaluate these claims at the administrative level.
Except that there may be no federal tort action where there has been a failure to make an administrative claim, the Act does not specifically authorize sanctions for a failure to follow regulations. The question here is whether a court may impose the sanction of dismissal where a claimant has failed to provide an agency with the information required by 28 C.F.R. § 14.4. It is clear that, where there has been a failure to state a sum certain in compliance with 28 C.F.R. § 14.2, a court may dismiss an action. Caton v. United States, 495 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1974); Avril v. United States, 461 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir. 1972). The same authority which spawned 28 C.F.R. § 14.2 spawned 28 C.F.R. § 14.4, and certainly the statement of need for information not contained on the claim form is as vital to the intelligent exercise of administrative power as is the statement of a sum certain.
It was the intention of Congress that tort claims be administratively settled if possible. This purpose would be frustrated by a claimant who, after filing a Form 95 containing a minimum statement, deliberately failed to respond to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Industrial Indem. Co. v. United States, CIV.S-78-661 RAR.
...evaluate the claim and then present the matter for the first time to a district court. 398 F.Supp. at 1268, accord, Cummings v. United States, 449 F.Supp. 40 (D.Mont. 1978). The adoption by the Court of the government's initial premise does not mean that this Court adopts the government's u......
-
Reynoso v. United States, C-81-1831 SAW.
...no "proper" claim was "first presented" to the agency. See, Kornbluth v. Savannah, 398 F.Supp. 1266 (E.D.N.Y.1975); Cummings v. United States, 449 F.Supp. 40 (D.Mont.1978); Rothman v. United States, 434 F.Supp. 13 (C.D.Cal.1977); State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. United Stat......
-
Swift v. U.S., 79-1162
...true that the agency could have denied the claim due to counsel's failure to respond to the agency's four letters, Cummings v. United States, 449 F.Supp. 40 (D.Mont.1978); Rothman v. United States, 434 F.Supp. 13 (C.D.Cal.1977) and Kornbluth v. Savannah, supra, 398 F.Supp. 1266, the agency ......
-
Avery v. U.S., s. 81-3119
...a jurisdictional bar to the suit, citing Rothman, supra; Kornbluth v. Savannah, 398 F.Supp. 1266 (E.D.N.Y.1975); and Cummings v. United States, 449 F.Supp. 40 (D.Mont.1978). We hold it was error in both cases to dismiss the federal tort claim suits for lack of jurisdiction, and we A claim i......