Saylor v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. S-18-794.,S-18-794. |
| Citation | 306 Neb. 147,944 N.W.2d 726 |
| Parties | James SAYLOR, appellant, v. STATE of Nebraska et al., appellees. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Michael J. Wilson, of Berry Law Firm, Lincoln, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, Scott R. Straus, and, on brief, David A. Lopez, Deputy Solicitor General, for appellee State of Nebraska.
Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ.
Stacy, J. James Saylor, an inmate at the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS), appeals from an order dismissing his lawsuit under the Nebraska State Tort Claims Act (STCA),1 based on a finding that Saylor failed to comply with the presuit filing requirements of the STCA.2 Because we find Saylor substantially complied with those requirements, we reverse, and remand for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
Tort claims against the State are governed by the STCA.3 This case requires us to focus on the presuit administrative requirements of the STCA. Before suit can be commenced under the STCA, a claimant must present the claim in writing to the Risk Manager for the State Claims Board within 2 years after the claim accrued.4 Pursuant to § 81-8,212, such claim "shall be filed with the Risk Manager in the manner prescribed by the State Claims Board." Generally speaking, a claimant cannot file suit under the STCA until the Risk Manager or State Claims Board makes a final disposition of the claim.5 However, if no final disposition of a claim has been made after 6 months, § 81-8,213 authorizes the claimant to withdraw the claim and commence an action under the STCA.6
We have described the presuit claim presentment requirement in § 81-8,212 and the final disposition requirement in § 81-8,213 as procedural conditions precedent to commencing a tort action against the State in district court, and not as jurisdictional prerequisites for the adjudication of a tort claim against the State.7 Noncompliance with these procedural conditions precedent is considered an affirmative defense to be raised by the State.8 We apply the same rules to the presuit claim presentment and final disposition procedures under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA).9 Under both the STCA and the PSTCA, the primary purpose of the presuit claim presentment procedures is the same: to notify the state or political subdivision about possible tort liability for a recent act or omission, to provide an opportunity to investigate the allegedly tortious conduct, and to enable the state or political subdivision to make a decision whether to pay or defend the claim.10
SAYLOR FILES TORT CLAIMS WITH RISK MANAGER
Between June 12, 2016, and February 23, 2017, Saylor filed 16 separate tort claims with the Risk Manager.11 Pursuant to § 81-8,212 of the STCA, these claims had to "be filed with the Risk Manager in the manner prescribed by the State Claims Board." Saylor filed all 16 of his claims using the standard form provided by the Risk Manager. Each claim form contained 18 fields requesting information regarding the claim. Some fields were marked with an asterisk indicating it was a "required" field. Further, each form contained a blank area with the following instructions:
Provide detailed itemization of all known facts/circumstances/damages leading to your claim. Identify all property, places, and people involved. Include names, addresses and phone numbers of witnesses, if any. The information provided herein, along with the findings of the investigating agency, will form the basis of any decision.
In this section, most of Saylor's claim forms described instances in which he claimed the actions of DCS or its employees either denied him timely medical care, aggravated his existing post-traumatic stress disorder
, or deprived him of the use of devices that eased his pain. In a few claim forms, Saylor alleged DCS staff deprived him of the use of certain legal materials in his possession or interfered with his ability to meet with his attorney. Saylor generally stated that all these things caused him physical and emotional pain and suffering.
On each form, Saylor provided information in all required fields. One of the required fields, field No. 9, was titled "Total Amount of Claim." When completing field No. 9 on each claim form, Saylor wrote "[t]o be proven" without specifying a dollar amount.
The Risk Manager, in a series of letters, acknowledged receiving all of Saylor's claims. Those letters notified Saylor of the claim numbers assigned to his claims and advised it may take up to 6 months to receive final disposition. None of the letters indicated the claim forms were incomplete, and there is no evidence that additional information was requested from Saylor during the Risk Manager's investigation. The parties generally agree the Risk Manager denied Saylor's tort claims in a series of letters dated June 15, 2017. Those denial letters indicated that upon investigating the claims, "it was determined that there is no evidence of staff misconduct or negligence."
COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On June 16, 2017, Saylor filed a complaint in district court against the State of Nebraska, DCS, and 10 unnamed DCS employees (the State). He thereafter filed an amended complaint, styled as 16 separate causes of action, each one premised on a tort claim previously submitted to and denied by the Risk Manager. The State moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.12 The parties stipulated to the receipt of evidence and agreed the motion should be treated as one for summary judgment.13
The State's sole argument for summary judgment was that Saylor failed to satisfy the claim presentment provisions of § 81-8,212 with respect to his claimed damages. The State asserted, summarized, that § 81-8,212 requires all tort claims to be filed "in the manner prescribed by the State Claims Board" and that regulations adopted by the State Claims Board14 require all claims to "contain all information called for" on the claim form.15 The State argued that Saylor's claims did not "contain all information called for" on the form because he did not specify a dollar amount in field No. 9. In remarks to the court, the State suggested there were other possible deficiencies in Saylor's tort claims, but in the interest of time, it had elected to seek dismissal only on the basis that no dollar amount was specified in field No. 9. The district court limited its analysis accordingly.
DISTRICT COURT ORDER
The district court agreed with the State that by not specifying a dollar amount in field No. 9, Saylor had not filed his claim in the manner prescribed by the State Claims Board, and that therefore, he had not complied with § 81-8,212. The court expressly rejected Saylor's assertion that the State waived its right to contest compliance with the claims procedure under § 81-8,212 by accepting his claim forms, sending him letters acknowledging receipt and assigning claims numbers, and then denying the claims on their merits.
The district court granted the State's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Saylor's amended complaint with prejudice. Saylor timely appealed, and we moved the case to our docket on our own motion.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Saylor assigns, restated, that the district court erred in granting the State's motion for summary judgment because (1) Saylor's tort claim forms provided the requested information and substantially complied with the presuit requirements of the STCA and (2) the State waived any challenge to compliance with requested information on the tort claim forms.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate court will affirm a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.16 In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.17
Where the relevant facts are undisputed, whether the notice requirements of the STCA or the PSTCA have been satisfied is a question of law, on which an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the lower court's ruling.18
Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below.19
ANALYSIS
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing Saylor's STCA action for failure to comply with the presuit claim presentment requirement of § 81-8,212. As stated, that statute requires, in relevant part, that "[a]ll tort claims shall be filed with the Risk Manager in the manner prescribed by the State Claims Board."20
The State Claims Board has adopted rules and regulations that prescribe not only the manner of filing a tort claim, but also the form and content of such claims. Assuming without deciding that the statutory authority to prescribe the "manner" of filing tort claims with the Risk Manager includes prescribing the form and content of such claims, we summarize, in the next section, the pertinent regulations adopted by the State Claims Board.
A certified copy of those regulations was received into evidence at the summary judgment hearing. It showed the regulations were adopted in 1975 and have not been amended since that time. It also showed the regulations have been signed and approved by the Governor and the Attorney General, as well as filed with the Secretary of State. We have held that agency regulations that are properly adopted and filed with the Secretary of State have the effect of statutory law.21
STATE CLAIMS BOARD RULES AND REGULATIONS
Regarding the manner of filing a tort claim, the regulations require it "shall be filed in triplicate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashford v. Hendrix
...is bolstered by the existence of the STCA; "[t]ort claims against the State are governed by the STCA." Saylor v. State, 306 Neb. 147, 149, 944 N.W.2d 726, 729 (2020) (citing Komar v. State, 299 Neb. 301, 908 N.W.2d 610 (2018)). Accordingly, the PSTCA does not waive the State's or Hendrix's ......
-
Great N. Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha
...Esch , 25 Neb. App. 306, 905 N.W.2d 105 (2017).18 See Saylor v. State , 304 Neb. 779, 936 N.W.2d 924 (2020).19 Id.20 Saylor v. State , 306 Neb. 147, 944 N.W.2d 726 (2020).21 Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth. , 266 Neb. 317, 664 N.W.2d 461 (2003).22 Id. (Gerrard, J., concurring; McCor......