Emery v. US
Decision Date | 29 February 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 2:95-CV-274.,2:95-CV-274. |
Citation | 920 F. Supp. 788 |
Parties | James E. EMERY and Amelia Emery, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America and Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Michael E. Makinen, Goodman & Makinen, Hancock, MI, for plaintiffs.
Glenda G. Gordon, Asst. U.S. Attorney, and Michael H. Dettmer, U.S. Attorney, Marquette, MI, for defendants.
This case is a civil action wherein plaintiffs James and Amelia Emery bring claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., against the United States of America and the Department of Health and Human Services. These claims arise from the allegedly substandard medical treatment James Emery received from Geoffrey Harrison, the health service physician serving the Keweenaw Bay Tribal Community. This matter is before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss Amelia Emery as a party to the case.
Plaintiff James Emery filed an administrative claim under the FTCA for injuries alleging resulting from Dr. Harrison's allegedly inappropriate Isoniazid prescription. The claim filed by James Emery against defendants lists only himself as a claimant. The claim form, however, contains a section of the form entitled "Personal Injury/Wrongful Death." This section instructs the person completing the form to Under this section, the following sentence appears: "Wife, Amelia Emery, has suffered a loss of consortium, love and affection." Under the sections for damages for personal injury and for total injuries appears the phrase "two million." There is no evidence that Amelia Emery signed James Emery's claim form. Further, Amelia Emery never filed a separate administrative claim form.
An action may be dismissed if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The moving party has the burden of proving that no claim exists. Although a complaint is to be liberally construed, it is still necessary that the complaint contain more than bare assertions of legal conclusions. Allard v. Weitzman (In re DeLorean Motor Co.), 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir.1993). All factual allegations in the complaint must be presumed to be true, and reasonable inferences must be made in favor of the non-moving party. 2A James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 12.072.5 (2d ed. 1991). The Court need not, however, accept unwarranted factual inferences. Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987). Dismissal is proper "only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984).
Dismissal is also proper if the complaint fails to allege an element necessary for relief or "if an affirmative defense or other bar to relief is apparent from the face of the complaint, such as the official immunity of the defendant...." 2A James W. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 12.072.5 (2d ed. 1991).
"In practice, `a ... complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.'"
Allard, 991 F.2d at 1240 (quoting Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir.1988)).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) of the FTCA:
an action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages ... unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency....
A claim must be filed within two years after it accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The filing requirements are not mere jurisdictional technicalities. Rather, they are essential to the fulfillment of the Congressional intent underlying the statute. Congress enacted the administrative claims procedure to lessen the court caseload by requiring "that claims be presented first to the agency for possible settlement." Knapp v. United States, 844 F.2d 376, 378 (6th Cir.1988); see also Casey v. United States, 635 F.Supp. 221, 226 n. 6 (D.Mass.1986) ( ). In this light, the administrative claims procedure's filing requirements are jurisdictional in nature, and stand as an absolute prerequisite to maintaining a civil action against the United States. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 110-11, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1983, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993). Defendants assert that Amelia Emery's claim must be dismissed because she never filed a claim with the appropriate administrative agency.
Under Michigan law, a spouse's claim for loss of consortium is separate and independent from the claim of the physically injured spouse. Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes, Co., 431 Mich. 26, 29, 427 N.W.2d 488 (1988). Thus, simply because the government had notice of her husband's claims for personal injury does not mean or require that Amelia Emery was entitled to pursue her claim for loss of consortium in federal court. In order to remain a party to this action, she must prove that she has also exhausted her administrative remedies under § 2675(a) with respect to her loss of consortium claim.
The Sixth Circuit has held that the requirements of § 2675(a) are met only "if the claimant (1) gives the agency written notice of his or her claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and (2) places a value or "sum certain" on his or her claim." Knapp, 844 F.2d at 379 ( ). As a general rule, the Fifth Circuit holds that "no particular form or manner of giving such notice is required as long as the agency is somehow informed of the fact of and the amount of the claim within the two year period prescribed by § 2401(b)." Williams v. United States, 693 F.2d 555, 557 (5th Cir.1982).
Regarding the first prong of the § 2675(a) test, many courts have held that loss of consortium must be expressly raised in an administrative claim to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the FTCA. See, e.g., Manko v. United States, 830 F.2d 831, 840 (8th Cir.1987); Johnson v. United States, 704 F.2d 1431, 1442 (9th Cir.1983). On a few occasions, however, courts have found that the government has been given adequate notice of a spouse's loss of consortium claim where the spouse did not file a separate form with the appropriate agency, but raised the claim in the same form as the other spouse. See, e.g., Loper v. United States, 904 F.Supp. 863, 866 (N.D.Ind.1995); Casey v. United States, 635 F.Supp. 221 (D.Mass.1986). Another federal district court has held that "to preserve her right to bring a derivative but separate FTCA action in this court for loss of consortium, plaintiff's wife ... was required either to join in plaintiff's claim or to file a separate claim." Johnson v. United States, 496 F.Supp. 597, 601 (D.Mont.1980), aff'd, 704 F.2d 1431 (9th Cir.1983) (emphasis added).1
In light of the liberal reading of § 2675(a) required by Williams v. United States and other federal case law, this Court holds that the notice requirement set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) does not require a spouse to file a separate administrative claim form from her spouse's when filing a loss of consortium claim.
In the instant case, plaintiffs contend that James Emery's claim form "clearly and unambiguously included the claim by Amelia Emery for loss of consortium," thereby putting the government on notice of Amelia Emery's claim. This Court agrees. Although Amelia Emery was not listed as a claimant on James Emery's claim form, it is clear from the face of the form that she was alleging a claim for loss of consortium against the government. In response to form Question No. 10, the Emerys wrote "Wife, Amelia Emery, has suffered a loss of consortium, love and affection." In short, the Emerys' response to form Question No. 10 provided "sufficient notice to enable the agency to investigate the claim...." Charlton v. United States, 743 F.2d 557, 559-60 (7th Cir.1984). As a result, the statute's "purpose — to promote fair settlement — was not hindered by James Emery's inclusion of Amelia Emery's claim on the same administrative claims form." Hardiman v. United States, 752 F.Supp. 52, 54 (D.N.H.1989). Thus, the form filed by the Emerys was sufficient to provide defendants with adequate notice of Amelia Emery's claim under the Sixth Circuit's test for § 2675(a).
Regarding the second prong of the § 2675(a) test — the requirement that the claimant place a value on his or her claim — defendants argue in its reply brief that Amelia Emery's failure to set forth a "sum certain" for damages represents a failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of the statute.2 Where a form is submitted with the "Amount of Claim" section left blank, it is clearly invalid. Avril v. United States, 461 F.2d 1090, 1091 (9th Cir.1972). The plaintiffs in the instant case, however, specifically requested $2 million in personal injury damages for their claims. Defendants complain that it was never apprised of the specific damages requested by Amelia Emery as distinguished from her husband.
In addition to governmental efficiency, the FTCA administrative claims procedure is intended to provide for "more fair and equitable treatment of private individuals and claimants when they deal with their Government or are involved in litigation with their Government." Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284, 289 (5th Cir.1980) ( ). The purpose of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Grant v. Rivers
-
Betsuie v. U.S.
...notice, together with affidavit of wife for loss of consortium, held properly presented to Veterans Administration); Emery v. United States, 920 F.Supp. 788 (W.D.Mich. 1996) (husband's claim form filed with agency was sufficient to put agency on notice of wife's loss of consortium Melinda B......
-
In re Rambo Imaging, L.L.P., Case No. 07-11190-FRM (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 11/8/2007), Case No. 07-11190-FRM.
...be liberally construed, it is still necessary that complaint contain more than bare assertions of legal conclusions." Emery v. U.S., 920 F. Supp. 788 (W.D. Mich. 1996). Official Form 5 does contain only conclusions as to the "not contingent" and "not subject to a bona fide dispute" allegati......
-
Cupp v. United States
...spouse was listed as a claimant or his claims were otherwise apparent on the face of the claim form. See Emery v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 788, 790-91 (W.D. Mich. 1996); Kokaras v. United States, 750 F. Supp. 542, 546 (D.N.H. 1990); Casey v. United States, 635 F. Supp. 221, 225-26 (D. Ma......