DANIELS v. AFLOA/JACC

Filing 6

ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's case. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 11/21/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
WENDY RENA DANIELS, on behalf of
CLARISSA DANIELL DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AFLOA/JACC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-cv-354 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s recast complaint attempting to assert a claim
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. (Doc. 5). On October 20, 2014, the Court
granted the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but in lieu of dismissing the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court directed the Plaintiff to state
why her administrative claim was timely filed. (Doc. 4). Because the Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to dismiss the case if it: (1) is
frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3)
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries suffered by her daughter
when she was delivered at an Air Force hospital in 1987. (Doc. 1). The daughter is
now at least 26 years old. According to the documents attached to the complaint, the
Air Force Legal Operations Agency, noting that the Plaintiff’s administrative claim was
filed 25 years after her daughter’s birth, denied the Plaintiff’s administrative claim as
untimely. (Doc. 1-2). Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, “[a] tort claim against the

United States shall be forever barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate
Federal Agency within two years after such claim accrues.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2401(b). A
claim for medical malpractice “accrues when the plaintiff is, or in the exercise of
reasonable diligence should be, aware of both her injury and its connection with some
act of the defendant.” Price v. United States, 775 F.2d 1491, 1493 (11th Cir. 1985).
“Knowledge of the injury and its cause should stimulate inquiry, and the victim of the
injury has two years to discover enough facts on which to base the claim.” Jones v.
United States, 294 F. App’x 476, 479 (11th Cir. 2008).
The Defendant contends the claim was not timely filed because the Plaintiff knew
of the alleged negligence at her daughter’s birth and waited too long after the alleged
negligence occurred to file. (Doc. 1-2). In both the complaint and recast complaint, the
Plaintiff emphasizes she lacked the necessary medical knowledge to understand her
daughter’s brain damage or legal knowledge to file the claim within the limitations
period. (Docs. 1, 5). However, the Plaintiff admits she has been trying to file a claim
since before her daughter became a teenager, but it “took [her] 25 years to file.” (Doc 1
at 2). Given this admission, the two-year limitations period has run well past the latest
arguable date the Plaintiff was aware of the injury or should have been aware after an
exercise of reasonable diligence. Accordingly, the medical malpractice claim is timebarred, and thus the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this 21st day of November, 2014.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-2-