Margaret Lucas v. US
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02032-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999973236].. [16-1539]
Appeal: 16-1539
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/22/2016
Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1539
MARGARET A. LUCAS, Individually, as Widow and Wrongful
Death Beneficiary, and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of John A. Lucas, Deceased; STEPHANIE L. CADEN,
Individually, as Daughter and Wrongful Death Beneficiary of
John A. Lucas, Deceased; CAROLINE A. LUCAS, Individually,
as Daughter and Wrongful Death Beneficiary of John A.
Lucas, Deceased,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
WALTER REED NATIONAL MILITARY MEDICAL CENTER, f/k/a National
Naval Medical Center,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-02032-DKC)
Argued:
October 25, 2016
Before NIEMEYER
Circuit Judge.
and
MOTZ,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
November 22, 2016
and
DAVIS,
Senior
Appeal: 16-1539
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/22/2016
Pg: 2 of 7
ARGUED: Robert S. Peck, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION,
P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Molissa Heather Farber,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Patrick M. Regan, Christopher J. Regan,
REGAN ZAMBRI LONG, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Appeal: 16-1539
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/22/2016
Pg: 3 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Margaret Lucas appeals the dismissal of her Federal Torts
Claims Act (“FTCA”) complaint as untimely.
district
claim.
court
that
the
FTCA’s
We agree with the
limitations
period
bars
her
Nor has she shown extraordinary circumstances that call
for equitably tolling that bar.
We therefore affirm.
I.
In
November
2003,
Margaret
Lucas’s
husband,
John
Lucas,
underwent surgery to repair a paraesophageal hernia at what was
then the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.
As part of the procedure, surgeons implanted mesh in Mr. Lucas’s
body to prevent future herniation.
The mesh migrated, allegedly
causing Mr. Lucas’s health to deteriorate drastically over the
next several years.
Mr. Lucas suffered cardiac arrest in June
2009 and never regained consciousness.
He died on August 11,
2009.
On February 23, 2010, Margaret Lucas and her two surviving
daughters filed a medical malpractice claim with the Department
of the Navy.
Nearly four years passed before the Navy mailed
its notice of final denial on November 8, 2013.
a
plaintiff
has
six
months
to
initiate
an
Under the FTCA,
action
after
the
appropriate government agency mails her notice of its denial of
her claim.
28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) (2012).
3
Accordingly, Lucas had
Appeal: 16-1539
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/22/2016
Pg: 4 of 7
until May 8, 2014, to bring her FTCA claim against the United
States.
The parties agree that, because state law determines the
liability of the United States under the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 2674,
medical
malpractice
plaintiffs
seeking
relief
under
the
must comply with the state’s substantive requirements.
law,
which
the
parties
recognize
controls
here,
FTCA
Maryland
requires
a
plaintiff to submit her medical malpractice claim to the state’s
Health Care Alternative Dispute Resolution Office before filing
it in court.
Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-02(a), -
04(a)(1)(i) (West 2016).
A plaintiff must then file an expert
report certifying that the claim is meritorious within ninety
days.
Id. § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(i)(1).
Once a plaintiff has filed an
expert report, she may waive arbitration and proceed to court.
Id. § 3-2A-06B(a).
After receiving notice of the Navy’s denial, Lucas quickly
filed her claim with the state agency on November 21, 2013.
However,
she
did
not
file
her
expert
report
and
waive
arbitration until May 19, 2014 -- eleven days after the FTCA’s
six-month limitations period passed.
And Lucas did not file her
complaint in federal district court until one month later.
The United States moved to dismiss the complaint for lack
of
subject
untimely.
matter
jurisdiction
on
the
ground
that
it
was
The district court stayed the proceedings pending the
4
Appeal: 16-1539
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/22/2016
Pg: 5 of 7
Supreme Court’s resolution of United States v. Kwai Fun Wong,
135 S.Ct. 1625 (2015).
In that case, the Court held that the
FTCA’s filing deadline under § 2401(b) is not jurisdictional and
allows for equitable tolling.
135 S. Ct. at 1629.
After Kwai
Fun Wong, the United States moved to dismiss Lucas’s complaint
for failure to state a claim.
motion.
The district court granted the
The court reasoned that § 2401(b) applied and that no
extraordinary
circumstances
warranted
tolling
the
limitations
period.
II.
On appeal, Lucas first argues that her claim was timely
because filing a required state administrative claim begins an
“action” under § 2401(b).
But the text of § 2401(b) plainly
establishes that “action” refers only to a federal civil action.
See
Raplee
v.
United
States,
---
F.3d
---
(4th
Cir.
2016).
Therefore, § 2401(b) requires a plaintiff to file a complaint
with
a
federal
district
court
within
six
months
after
the
relevant federal agency mails her notice that it has denied her
claim.
after
Lucas filed her federal complaint more than a month
this
deadline
passed.
Therefore,
her
complaint
was
untimely.
Although § 2401(b) allows for equitable tolling, Lucas’s
case does not call for it.
We generally review the district
5
Appeal: 16-1539
Doc: 35
Filed: 11/22/2016
Pg: 6 of 7
court’s denial of equitable tolling for abuse of discretion.
Rouse v. Lee, 339 F.3d 238, 247 n.6 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
But see Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138, 143 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting
that in some circumstances review is de novo).
A statute can be equitably tolled only if a plaintiff shows
that (1) she pursued her claim with reasonable diligence and (2)
extraordinary circumstances prevented her from filing on time.
See Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649 (2010).
Equitable
tolling is an extraordinary remedy limited to those occasions
when
“it
period
would
against
be
the
unconscionable
party
and
to
gross
enforce
injustice
the
limitation
would
result.”
Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2000).
Regardless of whether Lucas pursued her claim diligently,
she
has
failed
to
show
any
“extraordinary
preventing her from filing on time.
circumstances”
In fact, Lucas does not
point to any intervening events that detained her.
Rather, she
argues only that Maryland’s pre-filing requirements themselves
constitute extraordinary circumstances.
Maryland’s pre-filing requirements certainly place a burden
on medical malpractice plaintiffs.
as an extraordinary circumstance.
medical
malpractice
claims
that
However, this hardly counts
The requirements apply to all
arise
in
Maryland.
Lucas’s
argument would require us to hold that it is unconscionable to
require an FTCA plaintiff to comply with state tort law.
6
We
Appeal: 16-1539
lack
Doc: 35
the
Filed: 11/22/2016
power
to
do
so.
Pg: 7 of 7
A
state
unquestionably
has
the
prerogative to place whatever requirements it chooses on its
tort
causes
plaintiffs
of
to
action.
comply
And
with
Congress
those
clearly
intended
requirements.
See,
FTCA
e.g.,
Anderson v. United States, 669 F.3d 161, 164 (4th Cir. 2011).
The
record
contains
no
evidence
that
requirements prevented Lucas from filing on time.
Maryland’s
Lucas had
more than four years to prepare the required state filings and
her federal complaint.
Moreover, the state agency processed
Lucas’s filings without delay.
The agency issued its order of
transfer –- allowing Lucas to proceed to federal court –- the
day after Lucas filed her expert report and waived arbitration.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
AFFIRMED.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?