Oda v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Filing
29
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIM by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 22 Motion to increase the amount of an administrative claim (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
CELESTE ODA,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: C 11-04514 PSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO INCREASE THE
AMOUNT OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE
CLAIM
(Re: Docket No. 22)
16
Plaintiff Celeste Oda (“Oda”) moves to increase her administrative claim from $70,000 to
17
$1 million. Defendant United States of America (the “Government”) opposes the motion. On
18
August 7, 2012, the parties appeared for hearing. Having reviewed the papers and considered the
19
arguments of counsel,
20
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Oda’s motion to increase the amount of her administrative
21
claim is DENIED.
22
Oda was involved in a series of automobile accidents, the second of which was a collision
23
with Phuong Tuan Le, an employee of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). This second
24
accident occurred on March 9, 2009 and forms the basis of her claim under the Federal Torts
25
Claims Act (“FTCA”). On May 27, 2010, Oda’s counsel made a settlement demand to the
26
Government for $70,000, including both medical costs and lost income.
27
28
1
Case No.: C 11-04514 PSG
ORDER
1
Oda contends that since the date of the settlement demand, her injuries have worsened.
2
According to Oda, her physicians now believe that Oda suffers from cervical radiculopathy and
3
that she will require steroidal epidural injections and spinal surgery. These more recent opinions of
4
her condition were rendered on July 6, 2011 and August 22, 2011. When the original settlement
5
demand was made, she had no way of knowing that her injuries were as serious as they are, that
6
they would progressively worsen or that she would face the prospect of long-term disability.
7
Because Oda’s present medical condition was not known at the time the settlement demand was
8
made, it is newly discovered evidence and she should be permitted to increase the amount of her
9
administrative claim.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
The Government responds that Oda does not meet the standard for the extraordinary relief
11
that she now seeks. Oda’s counsel, both former and present, knew of her alleged radiculopathy
12
when the administrative claim was first made and while it has been pending. In support of the
13
original settlement demand, Oda’s counsel included medical records that reflect a visit by Oda to
14
Kaiser’s urgent care clinic on the day of her second accident. Oda was diagnosed with post-motor
15
vehicle accident cervical and trapezius strain superimposed on a pre-existing recent motor vehicle
16
accident that has caused chronic neck pain and, critically, cervical radiculopathy. Oda sought
17
medical attention at Kaiser’s urgent care clinic for increasing stiffness, aches and tightness in her
18
paracervical and trapezius muscle area. Oda also disclosed at the clinic visit that she had chronic
19
numbness, tingling, weakness or pain radiation into her upper or lower extremities from the first
20
accident that had been improving but were flaring again. Oda missed work for six months after the
21
second accident occurred and thus Oda’s counsel should have known that her condition might be
22
more serious.
23
The Government also responds that Oda would have been permitted to amend her
24
administrative claim at any time before the USPS denied her claim in writing. Here, the USPS
25
denied her claim on October 28, 2011, well after Oda had received the subsequent diagnoses from
26
her physicians on July 6 and August 22, 2011. At any time between August 22, 2011 and October
27
28, 2011, Oda’s counsel therefore could have amended the administrative claim. He did not do so.
28
2
Case No.: C 11-04514 PSG
ORDER
1
Finally, the Government argues that the medical evidence does not support Oda’s claim that
2
she necessarily requires epidural steroidal injections or spinal surgery. Oda never obtained a repeat
3
MRI after the second accident to determine whether there was further damage to her spine. Two of
4
Oda’s treating physicians, Dr. Le (her primary care physician) and Dr. Wong (an orthopedic
5
surgeon), dispute whether she requires surgery. Dr. Hsieh (a hand surgeon) concludes that Oda’s
6
numbness and tingling in her hands and pain in her wrists are not related to either of the two
7
automobile accidents and instead, likely result from extensive prior computer usage at work and
8
from face-painting that she does. Moreover, both Drs. Burt and Lettice opine that Oda may need
9
surgery if her condition worsens or if further conservative treatments fail. Neither conclude that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Oda requires surgery.
11
The court agrees with the Government, albeit on more limited grounds than the
12
Government urges. The FTCA imposes a statutory cap on any damages that exceed the amount of
13
the claim presented to the federal agency. 1 To qualify for an exception to the statutory cap, a
14
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the increased amount sought is based upon newly
15
discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time the claim was presented to the federal
16
agency, or intervening facts relating to the amount of the claim. 2 Here, Oda moves to amend the
17
amount of her administrative claim on the grounds that there is newly discovered evidence that was
18
not reasonably discoverable regarding her medical condition. But Oda knew that radiculopathy was
19
part of her diagnosis at least from May 27, 2010, when she tendered her original settlement
20
demand. Oda also failed to amend her claim before it was denied on October 28, 2011, even though
21
she had obtained further diagnoses from two physicians suggesting epidural steroidal injections or
22
spinal surgery on July 9 and August 22, 2011 might be appropriate to treat her medical condition.
23
In addition, Oda was unable to work for at least six months. In sum, when the original settlement
24
demand was made, Oda’s medical condition was reasonably foreseeable and should have been
25
contemplated.
26
27
1
28
2
See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b).
See Richardson v. United States, 841 F.2d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 1988).
3
Case No.: C 11-04514 PSG
ORDER
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
Dated:
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
8/20/2012
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: C 11-04514 PSG
ORDER
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?