Williams et al v. Innis Community Health Center, Inc. et al

Filing 27

RULING: The Government's 13 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff, Alfreda Williams', claim is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/15/2015. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PETER WILLIAMS AND
ALFREDA WILLIAMS

CIVIL ACTION NO.

VERSUS

15-210-SDD-SCR

INNIS COMMUNITY HEALTH
CENTER, INC., ET AL.
RULING
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss1 filed by the Defendant,
United States of America (“the Government”). Plaintiffs, Peter and Alfreda Williams,
(“Plaintiffs”) have filed an Opposition2 to this motion. For the reasons which follow, the
Government’s motion will be granted.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Peter Williams, has asserted a claim of medical negligence under the

Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)3 for injuries he allegedly sustained at the Innis
Community Health Center, Inc., (“Innis”), which is operated by the Department of Health
and Hospitals (“DHH”). Plaintiffs allege that a doctor at Innis misdiagnosed Peter’s
condition, which allegedly resulted in the loss of Peter’s right testicle. Alfreda Williams,
Peter’s wife, has filed a claim for loss of consortium.4
The Government moves to dismiss the claim of Alfreda Williams under Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as she has failed to file an
1

Rec. Doc. No. 13. Although the Innis Community Health Center, Inc. is named as a Defendant in
addition to the United States, the United States is the only proper party defendant to this action.
2
Rec. Doc. No. 17.
3
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) and § 2671, et seq.
4
Rec. Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 4, 10-11.

28643 

Page 1 of 5 

administrative claim for the damages she seeks as required by the law; thus, it argues
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear her claim.
II.

FTCA JURISDICTIONAL PREREQUISITE
The FTCA provides that “an action shall not be instituted” unless plaintiff has

filed an administrative claim and either obtained a written denial or waited six months.5
In McNeil v. United States,6 the Supreme Court held that failure to completely exhaust
administrative remedies prior to filing an FTCA claim is a jurisdictional defect that
cannot be cured by administrative exhaustion after suit is filed. Following McNeil, the
Fifth Circuit has reaffirmed that exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional
when the United States is a defendant, and the requirement cannot be waived.7 Thus,
a court has no authority to equitably expand its jurisdiction beyond the limits established
by Congress.8
In Woody v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,9 the district court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana addressed this very issue. Woody involved an automobile accident
between the plaintiffs and a United States naval officer in the course and scope of her

5

Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir.1995) (emphasis added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)).
Specifically, § 2675(a) provides: “An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States
for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or
wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency
and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered
mail. The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at
the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this
section. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to such claims as may be asserted under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by third party complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim.”
6
508 U.S. 106, 112, 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984, 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993).
7
Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46, 54 (5th Cir.1995) (citing Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 203–04
(5th Cir. 1981)).
8
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 165 (5th Cir.2001) (citations omitted).
9
2009 WL 2447915 (E.D. La. Aug. 5, 2009).

28643 

Page 2 of 5 

duties at the time of the accident. Shannon Woody was a passenger in the car driven
by her spouse Joseph Woody.10 Shannon alluded to a loss of consortium claim on
behalf of Joseph who did not file his own administrative claim.11 Finding that it lacked
jurisdiction over Joseph’s claim, the Woody court explained:
Two district judges of this Court have previously addressed the situation
where a spouse attempts to append an unexhausted consortium claim to
a spouse's exhausted injury claim. Fuller v. U.S., No. 00–2791, 2001 WL
6725 (E.D. La. Jan. 2, 2001) (Vance, C.J .); Kirklin v. U.S., No. 00–3043,
2001 WL 1334991 (E.D.La. Oct.29, 2001) (Fallon, J). Judges Vance and
Fallon both concluded that the derivative nature of a consortium claim
does not excuse a spouse from exhausting his own claim. In both cases,
the spouses' unexhausted consortium claims were dismissed without
prejudice without regard to whether the claimant could timely file an
administrative claim under federal law. Fuller, 2001 WL 6725, at *2;
Kirklin, 2001 WL 1334991, at *02. Although the result is a harsh one, it is
in keeping with the well-established principle that waivers of immunity on
behalf of the United States are given a very narrow construction. Fuller,
2001 WL 6725, at *2.12

In 2012, the district court for the Southern District of Texas was faced with this
question in Garcia v. United States.13 In Garcia, the plaintiff’s wife sought to recover
damages for loss consortium based on her husband’s alleged injuries caused by the
United States Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs

10

Id.
Id.
12
Id.; see also Dennis v. McDonald, 2012 WL 547050 (W.D. La. Feb. 16, 2012)(holding that neither party
had exhausted administrative remedies which deprived the court of jurisdiction)(citing 28 U.S.C. §
2675(a); Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service, 546 U.S. 481 (2006) (spouse's loss of consortium claims were
conceded to be barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the FTCA); NcNeil v.
U.S., 508 U.S. 106 (1993) (jurisdictional prerequisite not met where plaintiff received final agency
determination on tort claim after filing suit, but before any substantial progress had been made in the
litigation)).
11

13

2012 WL 3150093 (S.D. Tex. July 31, 2012).

28643 

Page 3 of 5 

Enforcement.14 Mrs. Garcia had failed to present her claim in writing to the appropriate
federal agency in the proscribed time period as required by the law.15 Citing to Section
2675 of the FTCA, the court stated: “Section 2675's administrative presentment and
exhaustion requirements are satisfied ‘if the claimant (1) gives the agency written notice
of his or her claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and (2) places a value
on his or her claim.16 Noncompliance with section 2675 deprives a claimant of federal
court jurisdiction over his or her claim.’”17
The Garcia court continued: “Mr. Garcia's administrative claim gave the agency
no indication that his wife was also asserting a claim or that he was requesting
damages for loss of consortium and household services on behalf of his spouse. In
order for a spouse seeking damages for loss of consortium and household services to
preserve her right to seek relief in federal court, she must join in her husband's
administrative claim or file a separate administrative claim on her own behalf.”18 Finding
that Mrs. Garcia failed to comply with the administrative requirements of the FTCA, the
court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.19
This Court finds itself in no different position with respect to the unexhausted
claim of Alfreda Williams.

In their two-page Opposition20, without citing to any

supporting law or jurisprudence, Plaintiffs make the bold statement that, “[a]s a

14

Id.
Id.
16
Id., quoting Adams v. United States, 615 F.2d 284, 289 (5th Cir. 1980).
17
Id., quoting Adams, 615 F.2d at 290.
18
Id., citing e.g., Johnson v. United States, 496 F.Supp. 597 (D.Mont. 1980); Stephan v. United States,
490 F.Supp. 323 (W.D.Mich.1980); Stewart v. United States, 458 F.Supp. 871 (S.D.Ohio 1978).
19
Id. at *2.
20
Rec. Doc. 17.
15

28643 

Page 4 of 5 

derivative claim, Alfreda Williams’ claim simply piggybacks the claim of her husband,
Peter Williams. A separate administrative claim and cause of action should not be
necessary.”21 This statement flies in the face of the cited statute and jurisprudence
quoted by the Government and set forth above. Plaintiffs fail to cite a single case in
support of their “piggyback” theory, and the Court did not locate any sister court
decisions that treated this issue any differently than those discussed herein.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss22 is

GRANTED and Plaintiff, Alfreda Williams’, claim is dismissed without prejudice.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 15, 2015.

S

JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

21
22

Rec. Doc. No. 17, p. 2.
Rec. Doc. No. 13.

28643 

Page 5 of 5