sanchez v. united states, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Sanchez v. United States, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1333

ANGEL SANCHEZ, I ndi vi dual l y and asAdmi ni st r at or of t he Est at e of Raf ael a Sanchez,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Nat hani el M. Gor t on, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Howar d, and Kayat t a,Ci r cui t J udges.

Paul F. Kenney, wi t h whomKr i st en A. Barnes and Kenney &Conl ey, P. C. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Geor ge B. Hender son, I I , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t orney, wi t h whomCarmen M. Or t i z, Uni t ed St at es At t orney, was onbr i ef , f or appel l ee.

Ti mot hy C. Kel l eher I I I , Cool ey Mani on J ones LLP, ThomasR. Mur phy, Law Of f i ces of Thomas R. Murphy, LLC, Thomas M. Bond,The Kapl an/ Bond Gr oup, Sara J . Tr ezi se and Tr ezi se Law Gr oup on

br i ef f or Massachuset t s Academy of Tr i al Lawyer s, ami cus cur i ae.

J anuar y 14, 2014


2/22

KAYATTA, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f Angel Sanchez, a

wi dower and t he execut or of hi s wi f e' s est at e, sued hi s wi f e' s

doct or s f or medi cal mal pr act i ce. As i t t ur ned out , t hose doct or s

wer e f eder al empl oyees, agai nst whom cl ai ms ar e f or ever bar r ed

unl ess brought wi t hi n t he two- year l i mi t at i ons per i od Congr ess

al l owed under t he Feder al Tor t Cl ai ms Act ( "FTCA") , as opposed t o

t he thr ee- year per i od al l owed by Massachuset t s l aw f or medi cal

mal pr act i ce cl ai ms. As i t al so t ur ned out , t hose doct or s' st at us

as f ederal empl oyees was not r eadi l y apparent t o one who under t ook

no i nvest i gat i on. Mr . Sanchez' s l awyer s both made no such

i nvest i gat i on and wai t ed more t han t wo years bef ore pr esent i ng hi s

cl ai m. Based on our pr i or , cont r ol l i ng hol di ng i n a cl oser case,

Gonzal ez v. Uni t ed St at es, 284 F. 3d 281 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , we af f i r m

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t hat i t had no choi ce but t o di smi ss

t hi s l awsui t .

I. Background

The accur acy of t he al l egat i on t hat t he doct or s wer e

negl i gent i s not yet at i ssue i n t hi s st age of t hi s l awsui t .

Ot her wi se, t he mat er i al f act s of t hi s case, especi al l y t hose

r el at i ng t o t he pr ocedur al hi st or y and post ur e of t he sui t , ar e

undi sput ed. Cf . Mer l onghi v. Uni t ed St at es, 620 F. 3d 50, 54 ( 1st

Ci r . 2010) .

-2-


3/22

Dr . Raf ael a Sanchez1 di ed on Apr i l 24, 2009, t wo days

af t er she del i ver ed her t hi r d chi l d, by caesar ean sect i on, at Nor t h

Shor e Medi cal Cent er - Sal em Hospi t al ( "NSMC") . 2 The doct or s who

t r eat ed her at NSMC, Dr s. Kr i st i n Cot t er and Kal i nda Denni s, wor ked

f or Lynn Communi t y Heal t h Cent er ( "LCHC") , wher e Dr . Sanchez had

r ecei ved pr enat al car e. Angel Sanchez cont ends t hat t he t r eat i ng

doct or s knew or shoul d have known t hat hi s wi f e had at l east one of

t wo pot ent i al l y danger ous condi t i ons, pl acent a pr evi a3and pl acent a

accreta, 4 and so r equi r ed speci al car e i n t he r emoval of her

pl acent a, and pr obabl y a hyst er ect omy, t o mi ni mi ze t he r i sk of

hemor r hage. Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat Dr . Cot t er l ef t t he hospi t al

af t er t he del i ver y, l eavi ng Dr . Sanchez i n t he car e of Dr . Denni s, 5

1 Raf ael a Sanchez was an anest hesi ol ogi st .

2 The al l egat i on i n t he compl ai nt t hat Dr . Sanchez wasadmi t t ed t o t he hospi t al on Apr i l 22, 2010, but di ed Apr i l 24,

2009, appear s t o be a scr i vener ' s er r or .3 Pl acent a pr evi a i s "t he condi t i on i n whi ch t he [ pl acent a]

i s i mpl ant ed i n t he l ower segment of t he ut er us, extendi ng t o themar gi n of t he i nt er nal cer vi cal os [ ( openi ng) ] or par t i al l y orcompl et el y obst r uct i ng t he os. " St edman' s Medi cal Di ct i onar y 1389( Maur een Bar l ow Pugh et al . eds. , 27t h ed. 2000) .

4 Pl acent a accr et a i s " t he abnor mal adher ence of t hechor i oni c vi l l i [ ( t i ny vascul ar pr oj ecti ons f r om t he membr anebetween f etus and mot her ) ] t o t he myomet r i um[ ( t he muscul ar wal l oft he ut er us) . ] " St edman' s Medi cal Di ct i onar y 1175, 1389, 1962

( Maur een Bar l ow Pugh et al . eds. , 27t h ed. 2000) . Essent i al l y,par t s of t he pl acent a at t ach t oo st r ongl y t o t he ut er i ne wal l . SeeDomann v. Vi gi l , 261 F. 3d 980, 982 n. 2 ( 10t h Ci r . 2001) .

5 Pl ai nt i f f cl ai ms t hat Dr . Denni s was onl y a medi calr esi dent ; t he gover nment di sagr ees. The poi nt i s i mmat er i al t ot hi s appeal .

-3-


4/22

and t hat nei t her doct or per f or med a hyst er ect omy unt i l af t er

hemor r hagi ng began. When t he bl eedi ng persi st ed ( or r esumed) , Dr .

Sanchez di ed.

Mr . Sanchez r et ai ned l egal counsel at some poi nt pr i or t o

Febr uar y 2010. Counsel wai t ed unt i l Apr i l 11, 2012- - 35 mont hs

af t er Dr . Sanchez' s deat h- - t o f i l e sui t on Mr . Sanchez' s behal f

agai nst Dr . Cot t er i n Massachuset t s st at e cour t . Ni ne days l at er ,

t hey f i l ed an amended compl ai nt , addi ng Dr . Denni s as a def endant .

Unbeknownst t o Mr . Sanchez and hi s counsel , as empl oyees of LCHC

bot h doct or s wer e deemed t o be f ederal empl oyees under t he

Feder al l y Suppor t ed Heal t h Cent er s Assi st ance Act of 1992, Pub. L.

102- 501, 42 U. S. C. 233. As we have expl ai ned bef ore, see

Gonzal ez v. Uni t ed St ates, 284 F. 3d 281, 286, 288, 291 ( 1st Ci r .

2002) , and expl ai n agai n bel ow, t or t cl ai ms agai nst such doct or s

f or mal pr act i ce wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r empl oyment ar e cl ai ms

agai nst t he Uni t ed St at es, bar r ed i f not pr oper l y pur sued wi t hi n

t wo year s of t hei r accr ual ( as opposed t o t hr ee year s under

Massachuset t s l aw, see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, 2A) .

The Uni t ed St at es r emoved t he case t o f eder al cour t , and

subst i t ut ed i t sel f as t he def endant . See 28 U. S. C. 2679( d) . The

di st r i ct cour t di smi ssed t he sui t f or l ack of subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on af t er f i ndi ng i t t i me- bar r ed. Mr . Sanchez appeal s.

-4-


5/22

II. The Federal Tort Claims Act

Feder al cour t s l ack j ur i sdi ct i on over cl ai ms agai nst t he

Uni t ed St ates unl ess t he gover nment has wai ved i t s sover ei gn

i mmuni t y. See, e. g. , F. D. I . C. v. Meyer , 510 U. S. 471, 475 ( 1994) .

Absent wai ver , t hi s i mmuni t y appl i es t o t or t cl ai ms agai nst f eder al

empl oyees f or conduct wi t hi n t he scope of t hei r empl oyment . Cf . 28

U. S. C. 1346( b) ( 1) , 2679; Mer l onghi v. Uni t ed St at es, 620 F. 3d

50, 54 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . The FTCA i s "a l i mi t ed wai ver " of t hat

i mmuni t y, Abr eu v. Uni t ed St at es, 468 F. 3d 20, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ,

gi vi ng f eder al cour t s j ur i sdi cti on over ci vi l cl ai ms agai nst t he

gover nment f or death or i nj ur y "caused by t he negl i gent or wr ongf ul

act or omi ss i on of any empl oyee of t he Government . . . under

ci r cumst ances wher e t he Uni t ed St at es, i f a pr i vat e per son, woul d

be l i abl e to the cl ai mant i n accor dance wi t h t he l aw of t he pl ace

wher e t he act or omi ssi on occur r ed. " 28 U. S. C. 1346( b) ( 1) .

The FTCA' s l i mi t ed wai ver of i mmuni t y comes wi t h an

expi r at i on dat e. Speci f i cal l y, an FTCA cl ai m i s "f or ever bar r ed

unl ess i t i s pr esent ed i n wr i t i ng t o t he appr opr i at e Feder al agency

wi t hi n t wo year s af t er such cl ai maccr ues or unl ess act i on i s begun

wi t hi n si x mont hs af t er " the agency deni es t he cl ai m. I d.

-5-


6/22

2401( b) . 6 The FTCA' s t wo- year bar f or pr esent i ng cl ai ms creat es

a t r ap f or t he unwar y who f ai l t o r ecogni ze i t s appl i cabi l i t y t o a

speci f i c case and t hus f ai l t o act at al l wi t hi n t wo year s of

accr ual , or who sue i n t i me but f ai l t o f i r st pr esent t he cl ai m t o

t he appr opr i ate f eder al agency. I n 1988, Congr ess pr ovi ded l eeway

f or i ndi vi dual s i n t he l at t er cat egor y. See Feder al Empl oyees

Li abi l i t y Ref or m and Tor t Compensat i on Act of 1988 ( "West f al l

Act " ) , Pub. L. 100- 694, 102 St at . 4563. Under t he West f al l Act , i f

a t or t case i s f i l ed i n f eder al cour t or r emoved f r om st at e cour t

and t he Uni t ed St at es i s subst i t ut ed as t he def endant , see 28

U. S. C. 2679( d) ( 1) - ( 3) , t he cl ai m wi l l be deemed t i mel y under

sect i on 2401( b) i f " ( A) t he cl ai m woul d have been t i mel y had i t

been f i l ed on t he dat e t hat t he under l yi ng ci vi l act i on was

commenced, and ( B) t he cl ai m i s pr esent ed t o t he appr opr i at e

Feder al agency wi t hi n si xt y days af t er t he di smi ssal of t he ci vi l

act i on. " 28 U. S. C. 2679( d) ( 5) . Congr ess has not ot her wi se seen

f i t t o al t er t he t wo- year bar ( i n a way mat er i al t o t hi s sui t )

6 We r ead t hi s di sj unct i ve l anguage as set t i ng out t wodeadl i nes, bot h ( not j ust ei t her ) of whi ch must be sat i sf i ed.Ot her wi se, t her e woul d ef f ect i vel y be no deadl i ne at al l . See

El l i son v. Uni t ed St at es, 531 F. 3d 359, 361- 62 ( 6t h Ci r . 2008) .The r equi r ement t hat an FTCA cl ai m be admi ni st r at i vel y exhaust edder i ves i ndependent l y f r om28 U. S. C. 2675( a) , whi ch pr ovi des t hatan FTCA "act i on shal l not be i nst i t ut ed . . . unl ess t he cl ai mantshal l have f i r st pr esent ed t he cl ai m t o t he appr opr i at e Feder alagency and hi s cl ai m shal l have been f i nal l y deni ed by the agencyi n wr i t i ng . . . . "

-6-


7/22


8/22

Bar r et t , 462 F. 3d 28, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( exhaust i on) ; Acost a v.

U. S. Mar shal s Ser v. , 445 F. 3d 509, 513 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( same) ;

Gonzal ez v. Uni t ed St at es, 284 F. 3d 281, 287, 291 n. 11, 293 ( 1st

Ci r . 2002) ( t r eat i ng t i mel i ness as j ur i sdi ct i onal i n af f i r mi ng

di smi ssal of an unexhaust ed cl ai m, and concl udi ng t hat sect i on

2679( d) ( 5) di d not appl y) . Al t er nat i vel y, ei t her or bot h may be

seen as nonj ur i sdi ct i onal , but essent i al , cl ai m- pr ocessi ng r ul es.

See, e. g. , Kwai Fun Wong v. Beebe, 732 F. 3d 1030, 1039 (9t h Ci r .

2013) ( en banc) ( concl udi ng that sect i on 2401 const i t ut es a non-

j ur i sdi ct i onal cl ai m- pr ocessi ng r ul e) ; Gl ade ex r el . Lundskow v.

Uni t ed St at es, 692 F. 3d 718, 723 ( 7t h Ci r . 2012) ( exhaust i on

r equi r ement i s not j ur i sdi ct i onal and may be wai ved) . I n ei t her

event , we cer t ai nl y have some " l eeway t o choose among t hreshol d

gr ounds f or denyi ng audi ence t o a case. " Si nochem I nt ' l Co. Lt d.

v. Mal aysi a I nt ' l Shi ppi ng Cor p. , 549 U. S. 422, 431 ( 2007)

( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Det er mi ni ng t hat t hi s l awsui t shoul d have been di smi ssed

wi t hout pr ej udi ce due to f ai l ur e to exhaust woul d be the nar r owest

appr oach t o di sposi ng of t hi s appeal , because i t i s undi sput ed t hat

Mr . Sanchez has never pr esent ed hi s cl ai m t o the Depar t ment of

Heal t h and Human Servi ces. See McNei l v. Uni t ed St at es, 508 U. S.

106, 113 ( 1993) ; Cel est i ne v. Mount Vernon Nei ghborhood Heal t h

Ct r . , 403 F. 3d 76, 84 ( 2d Ci r . 2005) ( af f i r mi ng a di smi ssal wher e

f ai l ur e t o exhaust bar r ed t he cl ai m "and woul d cont i nue t o bar i t

-8-


9/22

even i f any possi bl e unj ust ef f ect s of di spar i t i es bet ween st at e

and f eder al st at ut es of l i mi t at i ons wer e r emedi ed by equi t abl e

t ol l i ng. " ) . Mr . Sanchez woul d t hen pr esumabl y pr esent t he cl ai mt o

t he agency wi t hi n si xty days of f i nal ent r y of t he j udgment of

di smi ssal ; t he agency woul d deny t he cl ai m as unt i mel y, and Mr .

Sanchez woul d f i l e sui t anew. At t hat poi nt , t he FTCA' s exhaust i on

r equi r ement ar guabl y woul d have been sat i sf i ed, l eavi ng onl y t he

quest i on of t i mel i ness. Wi t h t he ai d of t he West f al l Act , Mr .

Sanchez woul d t hen pr esent exact l y t he same argument s t hat he now

pr esent s, aski ng us t o f i nd t hat t hi s sui t was commenced wi t hi n t wo

year s of when hi s cl ai m accr ued.

Li t t l e commends such an appr oach unl ess i t i s t r ul y

necessary. Nor does any par t y r equest i t , each pr esumabl y

r ecogni zi ng t hat i t woul d add expense and del ay wi t hout of f er i ng

any count er vai l i ng pr agmat i c benef i t . Accor di ngl y, as we di d i n

Gonzal ez, we f i nd i t most appr opr i at e t o f or go t he quest i on of

admi ni st r at i ve exhaust i on and go st r ai ght t o t he quest i on of

t i mel i ness upon whi ch t he f i nal di sposi t i on of t hi s case wi l l

necessar i l y t ur n. 7

7 I n l i ght of our deci si on t o r each t he t i mel i ness quest i onf i r st , we need not addr ess whet her exhaust i on i s wai vabl e orwhet her t he gover nment has wai ved t hat ar gument on appeal . Cf .Dvi l a- l var ez v. Escuel a de Medi ci na Uni ver si dad Cent . del Car i be,257 F. 3d 58, 67 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( hol di ng t hat t he gover nment wai vedt he exhaust i on r equi r ement ) .

-9-


10/22

B. When did the claim accrue?

The par t i es agree t hat our r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r ul i ng under Rul e 12( b) ( 1) 8 i s de novo, as t he r el evant f act s ar e

not di sput ed. See Donahue v. Uni t ed St ates, 634 F. 3d 615, 623 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ( not i ng t hat whi l e appel l at e r evi ew of di smi ssal s under

Rul e 12( b) ( 1) "somet i mes r equi r es def er ence t o t he t r i al cour t , " an

appeal i nvol vi ng "onl y the obj ect i ve r easonabl eness of t he

pl ai nt i f f s ' f ai l ur e t o di scer n at an ear l i er t i me bot h t hei r i nj ur y

and i t s l i kel y cause" i s r evi ewed de novo) .

As not ed above, t he FTCA l i mi t at i ons per i od expi r es t wo

year s af t er t he cl ai m accr ues. 28 U. S. C. 2401( b) . A cause of

act i on gener al l y accrues when t he pl ai nt i f f i s i nj ur ed. Donahue,

634 F. 3d at 623. Never t hel ess, i n FTCA medi cal mal pr act i ce cases,

t he "di scover y rul e" may del ay accr ual unt i l a pl ai nt i f f knows ( or

r easonabl y shoul d know) bot h t hat he i s i nj ur ed and what caused hi s

i nj ur y; i t does not , however , post pone accrual unt i l a pot ent i al

8 Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f ar gues i n seeki ng equi t abl e t ol l i ng t hatt he t i mel i ness of hi s compl ai nt i s not j ur i sdi ct i onal , he does notappear t o obj ect t o Rul e 12( b) ( 1) as t he vehi cl e f or t he di smi ssalhere. Even i f t he mot i on shoul d have been br ought under Rul e12( b) ( 6) , however , i t woul d t hen have been conver t ed to a mot i onf or summary j udgment , Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( d) . See Cr uz- Vzquez v.Mennoni t e Gen. Hosp. , I nc. , 717 F. 3d 63, 68 & n. 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2013)( where mot i on shoul d have been consi dered under Rul e 12( b) ( 6) , not

12( b) ( 1) , r evi ewi ng t he r ecor d under t he summary j udgmentst andar d) . Gi ven t hat t he f act s ar e undi sput ed and bot h si des wer ehear d and pr esent ed evi dence on t he t i mel i ness i ssue, we cannot seehow t he resul t woul d have changed had pl ai nt i f f asked the cour t t opr oceed under Rul e 56. Cf . Ram r ez- Car l o v. Uni t ed St at es, 496F. 3d 41, 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( r evi ewi ng a gr ant of summary j udgmentas t o t he t i mel i ness of an FTCA cl ai m) .

-10-


11/22

pl ai nt i f f al so l ear ns that hi s i nj ur y was negl i gent l y i nf l i ct ed.

See i d. ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Kubr i ck, 444 U. S. 111, 122- 23

( 1979) . The di scover y r ul e i ncor por at es an obj ect i ve st andar d. To

del ay commencement of t he r unni ng of t he st atut e of l i mi t at i ons,

" t he f act ual basi s f or t he cause of act i on must have been

i nher ent l y unknowabl e [ t hat i s, not capabl e of det ect i on t hr ough

t he exer ci se of r easonabl e di l i gence] at t he t i me of i nj ur y. "

Gonzal ez, 284 F. 3d at 288- 89 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ; see al so Ram r ez- Car l o v. Uni t ed St at es, 496 F. 3d 41, 47

( 1st Ci r . 2007) . "Once a pl ai nt i f f knows of t he i nj ur y and i t s

pr obabl e cause, he/ she bear s t he r esponsi bi l i t y of i nqui r i ng among

t he medi cal and l egal communi t i es about whet her he/ she was wr onged

and shoul d t ake l egal act i on. " Gonzal ez, 284 F. 3d at 289 ( ci t i ng

Kubr i ck, 444 U. S. at 123) .

I t i s beyond r easonabl e di sput e t hat t he cl ai m her e

accr ued wel l bef or e Apr i l 11, 2010. Dr . Sanchez di ed on Apr i l 24,

2009, af t er gi vi ng bi r t h. Her i nj ur y was t hen, by i t s nat ur e,

compl et e and obvi ous. The cause- - post - par t um bl eedi ng- was bot h

known and chroni cl ed cont empor aneousl y. The deat h of a general l y

heal t hy woman i n chi l dbi r t h i s suf f i ci ent l y r ar e i n t hi s count r y

t oday so as t o make most r easonabl e peopl e ask why i t happened.

Mr . Sanchez i s appar ent l y j ust such a r easonabl e per son, who wi sel y

and under st andabl y t ur ned t o exper t s i n an ef f or t t o answer t hat

-11-


12/22

quest i on, r et ai ni ng hi s pr esent l aw f i r msomet i me pr i or t o Febr uar y

2010. 9

The deci si on t o r et ai n mal pr act i ce counsel f ol l owi ng a

mot her ' s deat h i n chi l dbi r t h i s a tel l i ng si gn t hat a r easonabl e

per son woul d have concl uded t hat " r easonabl e di l i gence" was cal l ed

f or i n order t o det er mi ne whet her t her e was negl i gence. Gonzal ez,

284 F. 3d at 289- 90 ( cl ai m accr ued at t he l at est when pl ai nt i f f

r et ai ned counsel ) ; see al so Ram r ez- Car l o, 496 F. 3d at 48. Her e,

mor eover , t her e was much i nf or mat i on avai l abl e to Pl ai nt i f f and hi s

counsel t o r ai se f ur t her cause f or di l i gent i nqui r y. The oper at i ve

and di schar ge repor t s10 i dent i f i ed t he r i sk f act or s known bef or e t he

f i r st sur ger y ( pl acent a pr evi a and possi bl e pl acent a accret a) ,

expl ai ned what st eps wer e t aken, and expr essl y at t r i but ed Dr .

Sanchez' s hemor r hage t o "DI C" - - t hat i s, di ssemi nat ed i nt r avascul ar

9 Nei t her Mr . Sanchez nor hi s counsel have vol unt eer ed t hepr eci se date counsel was r et ai ned. At or al argument , counseli ndi cat ed t hat he was on boar d by no l at er t han r oughl y t wo mont hsbef or e he r ecei ved, i n Febr uar y 2010, 427 pages of hospi t al r ecor dsi n r esponse to hi s r equest .

10 The gover nment , whi ch of f er ed t hese r epor t s, aver r ed onl yt hat i t had r ecei ved t hemf r omPl ai nt i f f ' s counsel . Pl ai nt i f f doesnot di sput e that t hey wer e par t of t he 427 pages of r epor t sPl ai nt i f f r ecei ved i n Febr uar y 2010. ( The r ecor ds t hat Pl ai nt i f fsays wer e i ncompl et e wer e the i nt r aoper at i ve, not post oper at i ve,r epor t s. ) Pl ai nt i f f al so of f er s no evi dence as t o when hi s counselobt ai ned t he Amended Sur gi cal Pat hol ogy Repor t .

-12-


13/22

coagul at i on, a danger ous bl eedi ng condi t i on. 11 Those r epor t s,

combi ned wi t h the Amended Surgi cal Pat hol ogy Repor t t hat was

compl eted and avai l abl e i n May 2009, pr ovi de evi dence that Dr .

Sanchez suf f er ed f r om bot h pl acent a pr evi a and pl acent a accr et a,

t he r i sky condi t i ons on whi ch pl ai nt i f f ' s compl ai nt was pr emi sed.

Mr . Sanchez not es t hat t he aut opsy r epor t was not

avai l abl e unt i l May of 2010. The aut opsy r epor t , t hough, l ar gel y

conf i r med i nf or mat i on i n or suggest ed by t he al r eady avai l abl e

r ecor ds: i t l i st ed as t he cause of deat h post par t um DI C of unknown

cause, and bot h pl acent a pr evi a and pl acent a accr et a as " f i nal

di agnoses. " I n shor t , i t r eveal ed no new cause of i nj ur y.

Mr . Sanchez al so ar gues t hat t he cl ai m di d not accrue

unt i l Apr i l 2012, when he r ecei ved l egi bl e copi es of t he f i nal si x

pages of medi cal r epor t s i ncl udi ng t he handwr i t t en i nt r aoper at i ve

r epor t s. He does not adequatel y expl ai n, however , ei t her what

ef f or t s wer e made t o get t hem sooner , or how t hei r absence

pr ecl uded hi m f r om t i mel y f i l i ng hi s cl ai m. Cf . T. L. ex r el .

I ngr am v. Uni t ed St at es, 443 F. 3d 956, 964- 65 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006)

( not i ng t hat a cause of act i on may not accr ue unt i l cr i t i cal

medi cal r ecor ds ar e r ecei ved, but decl i ni ng t o t ol l t he l i mi t at i ons

11 Di ssemi nated i nt r avascul ar coagul at i on i s "a hemor r hagi csyndr ome t hat occur s f ol l owi ng t he uncont r ol l ed act i vat i on ofcl ot t i ng f act or s and f i br i nol yt i c enzymes t hr oughout smal l bl oodvessel s . . . r esul t i ng i n t i ssue necr osi s and bl eedi ng. " St edman' sMedi cal Di ct i onary 371 ( Maur een Bar l ow Pugh et al . eds. , 27t h ed.2000) .

-13-


14/22

per i od wher e t he pl ai nt i f f di d not show t hat onl y the mi ssi ng

r ecor ds hel d t he cri t i cal i nf or mat i on) . He poi nt s t o no

i nf or mat i on i n t hese r ecor ds t hat i s bot h newl y r eveal ed and

r easonabl y necessary t o ascer t ai ni ng t he cause of t he i nj ur y. I n

sum, i n t hi s case ar i si ng out of an unexpect ed nosocomi al death,

wi t nessed by i dent i f i abl e pr of essi onal s who chr oni cl ed t he i nj ur y,

i t s cause, and t hei r own act s, t he cl ai m accr ued at t he l at est by

t he dat e pr i or t o Febr uary 2010 when Mr . Sanchez r etai ned counsel

t o i nvest i gat e a mal pr act i ce cl ai m. Whet her i t accrued ear l i er , we

need not deci de.

C. Is equitable tolling available under the FTCA?

Ther e exi st s a l ong r unni ng debat e over whet her t he

concept of equi t abl e t ol l i ng can be used t o del ay the r unni ng of

t he t i mel i ness r equi r ement s t hat ar e condi t i ons t o the FTCA' s

wai ver of sover ei gn i mmuni t y. Rat her t han f ocusi ng di r ect l y on t he

l anguage and hi st ory of t he FTCA as one mi ght expect , cour t s have

gener al l y appr oached t hi s quest i on i ndi r ect l y, aski ng whet her t he

appl i cabl e t i me l i mi t i s "j ur i sdi cti onal " and, i f so, deemi ng

equi t abl e t ol l i ng t o be unavai l abl e. See, e. g. , Kwai Fun Wong v.

Beebe, 732 F. 3d 1030, 1035- 47 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ; Ar t eaga v. Uni t ed

St at es, 711 F. 3d 828, 832- 3 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) ; see gener al l y J ohn R.

Sand & Gr avel Co. v. Uni t ed St at es, 552 U. S. 130, 133- 38 ( 2008)

( di scussi ng t he r el at i onshi p bet ween absol ut e or "j ur i sdi ct i onal "

deadl i nes and equi t abl e t ol l i ng) . Most r ecent l y, t he Supr eme Cour t

-14-


15/22

has gi ven added cr edence t o t hi s appr oach. See Sebel i us v. Aubur n

Reg' l Med. Ct r . , 133 S. Ct . 817, 824 ( 2013) ( " [ W] er e we to t ype t he

gover ni ng st at ut e ' j ur i sdi ct i onal ' " t her e coul d "be no equi t abl e

t ol l i ng. " ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

Thi s ci r cui t has pr evi ousl y opi ned t hat t he FTCA' s

t i mel i ness r equi r ement s ar e j ur i sdi ct i onal . See, e. g. ,

Romn- Cancel v. Uni t ed St ates, 613 F. 3d 37, 42 ( 1st Ci r . 2010)

( expl ai ni ng t hat " [ c] ompl i ance wi t h t he FTCA' s t empor al deadl i nes

i s bot h mandat or y and j ur i sdi ct i onal " ) . We have al so never t hel ess

assumed that equi t abl e tol l i ng can be appl i ed to t hose deadl i nes.

See Ram r ez- Car l o v. Uni t ed St ates, 496 F. 3d 41, 48- 49 & n. 3 ( 1st

Ci r . 2007) ; Rakes v. Uni t ed St at es, 442 F. 3d 7, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

But see McI nt yre v. Uni t ed St at es, 387 F. 3d 38, 61 & n. 8 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ( quest i oni ng whet her equi t abl e t ol l i ng appl i es t o FTCA) . We

ar e not , i t seems, t he onl y ci r cui t t o have pr oceeded i n t hi s

manner . See T. L. ex r el . I ngr am v. Uni t ed St at es, 443 F. 3d 956,

961 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) .

The obser vat i on i n Sebel i us and l i ke cases t hat l abel i ng

t hese deadl i nes "j ur i sdi ct i onal " woul d pr ecl ude appl i cat i on of

equi t abl e tol l i ng suggest s t hat somet hi ng must event ual l y gi ve i n

our ci r cui t ' s j ur i spr udence. The Supr eme Cour t ' s most r ecent

gui dance on what i s " j ur i sdi ct i onal " suggest s t hat we may have

er r ed i n pr esumi ng t hat subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on hi nged on

compl i ance wi t h t he FTCA' s deadl i nes f or pr esent i ng cl ai ms. See

-15-


16/22

gener al l y Gonzal ez v. Thal er , 132 S. Ct . 641, 648 ( 2012) ( pr essi ng

"a str i ct di st i nct i on bet ween t r ul y j ur i sdi ct i onal r ul es . . . and

nonj ur i sdi ct i onal cl ai m- pr ocessi ng r ul es" ( ci t at i ons and quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) ) . I f we di d so er r , however , i t does not f ol l ow

t hat we al so er r ed i n pr esumi ng t hat equi t abl e t ol l i ng can st ay t he

r unni ng of t he FTCA' s deadl i nes. To t he cont r ar y, cl assi f yi ng t he

deadl i nes as non- j ur i sdi ct i onal enhances t he case f or f i ndi ng

equi t abl e t ol l i ng t o be avai l abl e. See Kwai Fun Wong, 732 F. 3d at

1038 ( FTCA deadl i nes ar e not j ur i sdi ct i onal and equi t abl e t ol l i ng

i s avai l abl e) , over r ul i ng Mar l ey v. Uni t ed St at es, 567 F. 3d 1030

( 9t h Ci r . 2009) .

To deci de t he case now bef or e us, we need not

def i ni t i vel y unr avel t hi s skei n. Rat her , we can appr oach t hi s case

as we appr oached our deci si on i n Gonzal ez, gi vi ng t he pl ai nt i f f t he

benef i t of assumi ng t hat equi t y can t ol l t he r unni ng of t he FTCA' s

l i mi t at i ons per i od i f a f act ual basi s f or t ol l i ng exi sts .

D. Has plaintiff established a factual basis for invoking

equitable tolling?

The t r ap f or t he unwar y i nt o whi ch Mr . Sanchez has f al l en

ar i ses because doct or s who wor k at f aci l i t i es t hat may appear t o be

nongover nment al may never t hel ess be deemed f eder al empl oyees

because of t he manner i n whi ch t hei r empl oyers r ecei ve f ederalf unds. See 42 U. S. C. 233( g) . The r i sk of encount er i ng such a

t r ap need be t aken ser i ousl y. A publ i cl y- sear chabl e f eder al

dat abase suggest s t hat , f or 2014, t her e ar e t hi r t y- one ent i t i es

-16-


17/22

l i ke LCHC i n Massachuset t s and sevent y- seven i n t he Fi r st Ci r cui t .

U. S. Dep' t of Heal t h and Human Servs. Heal t h Res. and Servs.

Admi n. , Sear c h c ur r ent deemed ent i t i es ,

ht t p: / / bphc. hr sa. gov/ f t ca/ heal t hcent er s/ f t cahcdeemedent i t ysear ch.

ht ml ( l ast vi si t ed Dec. 16, 2013) . Under st ood i n t hi s cont ext ,

Gonzal ez i nst r uct s t hat l awyer s handl i ng medi cal mal pr act i ce cases

cannot si mpl y assume wi t hout i nvest i gat i on t hat t he l onger of t he

t wo pot ent i al l y appl i cabl e l i mi t at i ons per i ods cont r ol s. I nst ead,

t hey need make i nqui r y ( or , per haps, si mpl y sue wi t hi n t wo years of

accr ual ) . 12 See Gonzal ez, 284 F. 3d at 291 ( not i ng t hat " [ n] o

evi dence has been pr esent ed t hat [ pl ai nt i f f ] or her at t or neys made

any i nqui r y whatsoever as t o t he st atus of t he def endant s as

f eder al empl oyees. " ) . As t he Sevent h Ci r cui t r ecent l y expl ai ned,

I t ' s not aski ng t oo much of t he medi calmal pr act i ce bar t o be aware of t he exi st enceof f eder al l y f unded heal t h cent er s t hat can besued f or mal pr act i ce onl y under t he Feder alTor t Cl ai ms Act . . . and i f a member of t hatbar i s not awar e and mi sl eads a cl i ent , . . .t he l awyer may be l i abl e f or l egal mal pr act i cebut t he gover nment can st i l l i nvoke t hestat ut e of l i mi t at i ons.

Ar t eaga v. Uni t ed St at es, 711 F. 3d 828, 834- 35 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013)

( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

12 Massachuset t s at t orneys have added i ncent i ve t o consi dera t wo- year deadl i ne. Massachuset t s r equi r es cl ai ms agai nst i t t obe pr esent ed t o the appr opr i at e ent i t y wi t hi n t wo year s of accrual ,see Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, 4, and does not t ol l t hat per i odsi mpl y because a pl ai nt i f f i s unawar e t hat t hei r doct or may havebeen a publ i c empl oyee. See Kr asnow v. Al l en, 29 Mass. App. Ct .562, 566- 70 ( 1990) .

-17-


18/22

Good l awyer s, l i ke good doctors, make mi st akes. Mr .

Sanchez' s counsel ei t her were unawar e of t he FTCA t wo- year

deadl i ne, or si mpl y assumed wi t hout aski ng t hat none of t he

possi bl e def endant s wer e f eder al empl oyees. Counsel do not say

whi ch i t was. Gi ven what ot her wi se appear s t o be a f i r mdedi cat i on

t o t hei r cl i ent ' s case, one suspect s i t was t he f or mer . I n any

event , nei t her i nact i on bor n of i gnor ance nor r eckl essness i n t he

f ace of a known r i sk coul d pr ovi de a basi s f or est abl i shi ng

di l i gence gi ven t he hol di ng i n Gonzal ez. And "due di l i gence i s a

si ne qua non f or equi t abl e t ol l i ng. " Donahue v. Uni t ed St at es, 634

F. 3d 615, 629 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

Mr . Sanchez al so ar gues t hat any i nqui r y r egardi ng t he

empl oyment st at us of t he doct or s woul d have been unavai l i ng. He

cont ends t hat LCHC never i nf or med hi m of i t s f eder al st at us, t hat

hi s wi f e' s r ecor ds di d not r eveal t hat t he doct or s wer e f eder al

empl oyees, and t hat t he Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human Servi ces

r el i ed on i nt er nal r ecor ds, not publ i cl y avai l abl e i nf or mat i on, t o

cer t i f y t he st at us of LCHC and t he doct or s f or l i t i gat i on pur poses.

The gover nment cont ends t hat , i f pl ai nt i f f had used i t , a websi t e

and hot l i ne f or t he U. S. Depar t ment of Heal t h and Human Servi ces,

Heal t h Resour ces and Servi ces Admi ni st r at i on woul d have adequatel y

i nf ormed hi m t hat LCHC and i t s empl oyees were f ederal l y f unded and

mi ght be cover ed by t he FTCA. As Mr . Sanchez not es, however , i n

2009 and 2010, t hat websi t e woul d not have i nf ormed hi m t hat t he

-18-


19/22

speci f i c doctors who t r eated hi s wi f e wer e deemed t o be f eder al

empl oyees, and not ever y cl i ni c t hat r ecei ves f eder al f unds ( or was

l i st ed on t hat websi t e) was necessar i l y cover ed by sect i on 233. I n

addi t i on, we obser ve t hat t he i nf ormat i on r egardi ng FTCA cover age

and t he hot l i ne was har dl y conspi cuous on t he si t e.

Even so, t he i nf ormat i on on t he websi t e, had counsel

avai l ed t hemsel ves of i t , woul d cer t ai nl y have put t hemon at l east

hei ght ened i nqui r y not i ce r egar di ng t he t r eat i ng doct or s' deemed-

f eder al st at us. Mor eover , a Lexi s or West l aw sear ch f or Lynn

Communi t y Heal t h Cent er woul d have r eveal ed Har r i son v. Uni t ed

St at es, 284 F. 3d 293 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) , a 2002 FTCA medi cal

mal pr act i ce case agai nst anot her of LCHC' s doct or s. Si mpl y put , no

r easonabl y di l i gent l awyer who checked any of t hese sour ces of

i nf ormat i on woul d have l et t wo years pass wi t hout doi ng much more.

Mr . Sanchez has al so of f ered no evi dence that a phone

cal l or l et t er t o LCHC i nqui r i ng about i t s ( or i t s doctor s' ) st at us

woul d have been i gnor ed, or woul d have gener at ed a mi sl eadi ng

r esponse. We have exami ned t he r ecord f or any i ndi cat i on t hat t he

doct or s, LCHC, or t he gover nment gave pl ai nt i f f any f al se

i nf ormat i on or del ayed undul y i n answer i ng i mpor t ant r equest s so as

t o t hwar t , i nt ent i onal l y or ot her wi se, ef f or t s by pl ai nt i f f t o

ascer t ai n whet her t hi s sui t bel onged i n f eder al cour t . We have

f ound none.

-19-


20/22

We agree t hat t he f ederal gover nment coul d do mor e t o

publ i ci ze or al l evi at e t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons t r ap creat ed by

sect i on 233. Be t hat as i t may, t he absence of due di l i gence her e

i s no l ess pat ent , and l i kel y mor e so, t han i n Gonzal ez. As we

noted above, and as was not t he case i n Gonzal ez, a doct or f r om

LCHC had al r eady been i dent i f i ed as a f ederal empl oyee i n an FTCA

sui t . Bot h Gonzal ez and Har r i son wer e deci ded i n 2002, wel l bef ore

t he event s i n quest i on her e. I f , on t hese f act s, we wer e t o f i nd

t he st at ut or y deadl i nes t ol l ed, t hen i t woul d f ol l ow t hat Gonzal ez

was wr ong.

Under st andabl y, f i ndi ng Gonzal ez t o be wr ongl y deci ded i s

pr eci sel y what pl ai nt i f f i nvi t es us t o do. Depar t i ng f r omci r cui t

pr ecedent , however , can be j ust i f i ed onl y by "super veni ng

aut hor i t y" ( such as a r ul i ng of t he Supr eme Cour t or t hi s Cour t en

banc) , Muskat v. Uni t ed St at es, 554 F. 3d 183, 189 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ,

or "i n t hose r el at i vel y rare i nst ances i n whi ch aut hor i t y that

post dat es t he or i gi nal deci si on, al t hough not di r ect l y cont r ol l i ng,

never t hel ess of f er s a sound r eason f or bel i evi ng t hat t he f or mer

panel , i n l i ght of f r esh devel opment s, woul d change i t s col l ect i ve

mi nd. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pi r es, 642 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2011)

( ci t at i on and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The l at t er j ust i f i cat i on

i s nar r owl y const r ued, I gar t a v. Uni t ed St at es, 626 F. 3d 592,

603- 04 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) , and i mposes an "exact i ng st andar d, "

Snchez ex r el . D. R. - S. v. Uni t ed St at es, 671 F. 3d 86, 96 ( 1st Ci r .

-20-


21/22

2012) ; see al so San J uan Cabl e LLC v. P. R. Tel . Co. , I nc. , 612 F. 3d

25, 34 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( not i ng t hat t he cont r ar y concl usi on of

anot her ci r cui t cour t does not "di vest [ a panel ] opi ni on of i t s

cust omar y st ar e deci si s ef f ect wi t hi n t he ci r cui t ") .

To suggest t hat t he devel opment of t he l aw i n other

ci r cui t s, had i t been known t o t he Gonzal ez panel , woul d have

caused i t t o change i t s col l ect i ve mi nd, Mr . Sanchez r el i es on

cases f r om t wo ot her ci r cui t s: Sant os ex r el . Beat o v. Uni t ed

St at es, 559 F. 3d 189 ( 3d Ci r . 2009) , and Val dez ex r el . Donel y v.

Uni t ed St at es, 518 F. 3d 173 ( 2d Ci r . 2008) . Pl ai nt i f f i s cor r ect

t hat t hese and subsequent cases f r om t hose two ci r cui t s r ej ect t he

pr oposi t i on t hat by f ai l i ng t o ask speci f i cal l y about possi bl e

f eder al empl oyment , counsel necessar i l y f ai l t he due di l i gence

t est . Nei t her ci r cui t , however , bl esses compl et e i nact i on. I n

Sant os, f or exampl e, counsel act ual l y ran a publ i c r ecor ds sear ch

on t he r el evant doct or s' empl oyer . Sant os, 559 F. 3d at 200. I n

Phi l l i ps v. Gener at i ons Fami l y Heal t h Ct r . , 723 F. 3d 144 ( 2d Ci r .

2013) , t he Second Ci r cui t r ecent l y di st i ngui shed a case i n whi ch

counsel di d "l i t er al l y not hi ng t o i nvest i gat e t he def endant ' s

st at us" and adopt ed an appr oach t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng t hat

i ncor por ates, among ot her f act or s, t he pr i or knowl edge and

exper i ence of counsel . I d. at 152- 56. That appr oach r uns t he r i sk

of ef f ect i vel y hol di ng bet t er , mor e knowl edgeabl e pr act i t i oner s t o

a hi gher s t andard of car e. Thi s seems a bi t odd, but we need not

-21-


22/22

consi der i t f ur t her because Mr . Sanchez' s counsel of f er s no

si gni f i cant evi dence of t hei r medi cal mal pr act i ce exper i ence. Mor e

i mpor t ant l y, whether one vi ews t he approaches t aken by t hose t wo

ci r cui t s as appr opr i at e or not , t hey har dl y pai nt a pi ct ur e of a

r ush t o t he exi t so as t o al l ow us t o over r ul e our own cont r ol l i ng

pr ecedent here.

St at ut es of l i mi t at i ons bal ance a desi r e t o deci de cl ai ms

on t hei r mer i t s agai nst a desi r e t o pr ovi de r epose and avoi d t he

unf ai r ness of l i t i gat i ng st al e cl ai ms encumber ed by f aded memor i es.

Under f eder al l aw, Congr ess st r i kes t he chosen bal ance, l eavi ng

per haps some r oom f or equi t abl e di spensat i on wher e due di l i gence

coul d not have saved a cl ai m. Her e, wi t h no good expl anat i on f or

t he compl et e f ai l ur e t o t r y t o ascer t ai n whi ch l i mi t at i ons per i od

appl i ed, no per t i nent pr ecedent al l ows t he i ndi vi dual di spensat i on

r equest ed. We not e, however , t hat whi l e Mr . Sanchez has t hus l ost

hi s cl ai m agai nst hi s wi f e' s doct or s, he may not have yet l ost

al t oget her hi s chance t o r ecover f ul l compensat i on f or t hat l oss

f r omany pr of essi onal s r esponsi bl e f or t he ef f ect s of t he j udgment

i n t hi s case.

IV. Conclusion

For t hese r easons, t he j udgment of t he di st r i ct cour t i s

af f i r med.

-22-

sanchez v. united states, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents