Johle v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 13-0137 JB/KBM,CIV 13-0137 JB/KBM |
| Parties | VICTORIA JOHLE and MIKAELA JOHLE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's First Affirmative Defense and for Partial Summary Judgment, filed December 13, 2013 (Doc. 44)("Plaintiffs' MSJ"); (ii) the Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Strike Defendant's First Affirmative Defense and for Partial Summary Judgment, filed December 16, 2013 (Doc. 45)("Plaintiffs' Amended MSJ"); and (iii) the United States' Motion to Dismiss,2 filed December 30, 2013 (Doc. 46)("Defendant's MTD"). The Court held a hearing on March 19, 2014. The primary issues are: (i) whether a substantial question remains whether the Secretary of the UnitedStates Department of Labor would find the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 8101-93 ("FECA"), applicable after the Labor Department denied Victoria Johle and Mikaela Johle's FECA claim on account of insufficient evidence; and (ii) whether FECA's exclusivity provision precludes the Johles from bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80 ("FTCA"). The Court concludes that no substantial question remains whether FECA applies to the Johles and that FECA's exclusivity provision prohibits the Johles from bringing a FTCA claim. The Court, therefore, will deny the Johles' MSJ and Amended MSJ, and will grant the Defendant's MTD.
"At times relevant to this lawsuit, Ms. Johle was a federal employee who worked as a Medical Laboratory Technician at Crownpoint Indian Health Services Clinic." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 1, at 2 ( this fact). See Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike at 2, filed February 3, 2014 (Doc. 54)(not disputing this fact)("Response"). "Johle admits that she was injured in the course of her federal employment." Response ¶ 1, at 3 ( this fact).3 "On 8/17/2010, Ms. Johle submitted atimely claim for benefits under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) to the United States Department of Labor ("Labor Department") for injuries to her ankle." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 2, at 2 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "On 3/30/11 the Labor Department requested additional information to cure alleged deficiencies in the claim," and "[s]oon after, Ms. Johle submitted additional clinical notes and a medical report." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 3, at 2 ( this fact). See Response at 2 ().4 "Johle did not provide all of the requested items to OWCP." Response ¶ 5, at 3 ( this fact).5 "On 5/9/11, the Department denied Ms. Johle's FECA claim, citing unexplainedinconsistencies in the nature and cause of the injury in Ms. Johle's medical records." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 4, at 2 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "In denying the claim, the Department relied on a medical document dated 7/15/116 and concluded it 'does not mention any injury related to your employment.'" Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 4, at 2 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "Johle was represented by counsel before the OWCP." Response ¶ 2, at 3 ( this fact).7 "OWCP denied Johle's FECA claim due to [insufficient] evidence of a workplace injury." Response ¶ 6, at 3 ( this fact).8
The Department also relied upon a note from another of Ms. Johle's treating providers that indicated that Ms. Johle's injury was "more consistent with the 7/22/10 slip and fall injury than with the original injury which you stated was caused by simply pushing off the floor to spin around while you were seated on a stool [at work.]"
Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 4, at 2-3 ( this fact)(quoting Notice of Decision at 6 (dated December 2, 2011), filed December 16, 2013 (Doc. 45-2)(bracketed material in the Plaintiff's Amended MSJ). See Response at 2 ().
The Department weighed the evidence and denied Ms. Johle's claim
Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 5, at 3 ( this fact)(quoting Notice of Decision at 6 (dated December 2, 2011), filed December 16, 2013 (Doc. 45-2) .9 "On 11/21/11, the Department received a request for reconsideration of the denial of Ms. Johle's claim." Plaintiff's AmendedMSJ ¶ 6, at 3 ( this fact).10 See Response at 2 (). "On 12/2/11, the Office of Workers Compensation Programs rejected Ms. Johle's request for reconsideration, stating '[t]here remains insufficient evidence to support the Fact of Injury-Factual aspect of your case.'" Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 7, at 3 ()( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "Ms. Johle filed an appeal with the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board, which was denied by the board as untimely." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 8, at 3 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "On June 11, 2012, Plaintiff's prior attorneys filed an appeal from the December 2, 2011 decision of the OWCP, which was dismissed on October 4, 2012 because it was filed untimely [sic]." Response ¶ 9, at 4 ( this fact).11 "On 8/17/12 the Claims and Employment Law Branch of the Department of Health and Human Services denied the Plaintiffs' administrative tort claims under FECA." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 11, at3 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "On 10/4/12, the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board issued its Order Dismissing Appeal." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 9, at 3 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "The Order Dismissing Appeal stated that the Boards' [sic] decisions are 'final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.'" Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 10, at 3 ( this fact).12 See Response at 2 ().
"On 2/8/13, Ms. Johle filed this lawsuit, alleging claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act ('FTCA')." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 12, at 3 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "In its First Amended Answer, the United States denied that Ms. Johle's claims arise under the FTCA." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 13, at 4 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "Though the Department already reviewed and denied Ms. Johle's FECA claim, the United States now claims that this Court lacks jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c), which establishes that FECA is the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 14, at 4 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "The liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act is determined by the law of the state where the act or omission occurred." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 15, at 4 ( this fact). See Response at 2 ().
Victoria Johle's education is a high school diploma from Shiprock High School and an Associates Degree and American Medical Technologist certificate from Apollo College in Phoenix, Arizona [and] [s]he has no education in employment law, health law, workers' compensation law or tort law, and no medical education other than the education required to be a lab technician.
Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 16, at 4 ( this fact). See Response at 2 (). "Plaintiff communicated and corresponded with employees of Crownpoint Healthcare Facility and other Indian Health Services employees to provide and to request information and assistance regarding her FECA claim." Plaintiff's Amended MSJ ¶ 17, at 4 ( this fact). See Response at 2 ().
The Johles move the Court for summary judgment on the United States' First Affirmative Defense of lack of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c). They assert that, because the Labor Department already reviewed and denied V. Johle's FECA claim on the ground that it was not established that her injury was work-related, FECA exclusivity for work-related injuries does not bar an FTCA claim. The United States also moves for summary judgment -- although it initially filed a Motion to Dismiss rather than a Motion for Summary Judgment. See Tr. at 22:22-25 (Ortega, Court). The Court will briefly outline this case's progress and summarize the parties' arguments on the current motions.
The Johles filed their Complaint on February 8, 2013, against the United States for negligence resulting in the loss of V. Johle's foot. See Complaint ¶¶ 15-16, at 5, filed February 8, 2013 (Doc. 1). The Johles contend they are entitled to bring suit under the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1. The Johles argue that, because V. Johle has been substantively denied compensation under FECA, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Labor Department's decision. See Plaintiffs' Amended MSJ at 6. The Johles contend that, because FECA is not an available remedy, they are now eligible to bring suit under the FTCA. See Plaintiffs' Amended MSJ at 6. The United States asserts a number of affirmative defenses; atissue is the United States' first affirmative defense, stating that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Johles' claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8116(c) ("exclusivity provision"). Plaintiffs' Amended MSJ at 6.
.
The Johles filed their first MSJ on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial