Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01718/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01718-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06cv1718

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANA ROSA HUERTA, as guardian Ad

Litem for JANET HUERTA; SANTIAGO

RAMIREZ,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 06cv1718 JM(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

 TO DISMISS; REMANDING

ACTION TO STATE COURT

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SCRIPPS

HEALTH; DEAN CROMWELL, M.D.;

JACK ROWLAND, M.D.,

Defendants.

Defendant United States of America moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to

comply with the administrative claim requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”).

Plaintiffs Ana Rosa Huerta, as guardian ad litem for Janet Huerta, and Santiago Ramirez oppose the

motion. Defendants Scripps Health and Jack Rowland have not filed responses to the motion.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. For

the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is instructed to

dismiss the United States as a party and to remand the action back to state court. 

BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2006 Plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action in San Diego Superior

Court against North County Health Project, Inc., Scripps Health, Dean Cromwell, M.D., and Jack

Rowland, M.D. Plaintiffs generally allege that Defendants failed to provide adequate medical care

to 15 year old minor Janet Huerta and her deceased son, Santiago Ramirez. 

Case 3:06-cv-01718-JM-LSP Document 15 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06cv1718

On August 23, 2006 the United States filed both a Notice of Removal and a certification that

Dr. Rowland and North County Health Project, Inc., d.b.a. North County Health Services (“NCHP”)

were acting within the scope of their employment. The Department of Health and Human Services has

deemed NCHP and its employees to be federal employees of the Public Health Services. On

September 6, 2006 the court granted the requested substitution of the United States.

DISCUSSION

The Government moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to exhaust the mandatory

administrative exhaustion requirements of the FTCA. Pursuant to the Federally Supported Health

Centers Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. §§233(g) - (h), the Secretary of Health and Human Services

deemed NCHP and its physicians “employees” of the Public Health Service for purposes of the FTCA.

Accordingly, by operation of law the Government has been substituted as a defendant in lieu of Dr.

Rowland and NCHP. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2675(a), a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing an action in tort against

the United States is the filing of an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency. Brady

v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). An action commenced prior to the presentment

of an FTCA administrative claim to the appropriate agency is premature and must be dismissed.

Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1992). A prematurely filed action cannot be cured

by presenting an FTCA administrative claim after the suit has been filed. McNeil v. Untied States,

508 U.S. 106, 110-113 (1993) (“Congress intended to require complete exhaustion of Executive

remedies before invocation of the judicial process.”).

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs did not file an administrative claim prior to commencing

this action. Plaintiffs contend that the March 8, 2006 Notice of Intent to sue provided to Defendants

Rowland and NCHP pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 364 satisfies the

exhaustion requirement of FTCA. This argument is not persuasive.

The Notice of Intent to Sue, (Oppo. Exh. 1), provided to NCHP and Dr. Rowland did not

request a sum certain. Even if the court were to construe the Notice of Intent to Sue as fairly

presenting the claim to the appropriate federal agency, the Notice is inadequate as a matter of law

because the failure to present an administrative claim that includes a sum certain is fatal to district

Case 3:06-cv-01718-JM-LSP Document 15 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 06cv1718

court jurisdiction. See Blair v. I.N.S., 304 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that the district court had

jurisdiction under the FTCA to adjudicate a wage loss claim for which a sum certain was provided,

though it did not have jurisdiction to entertain a medical expenses claim for which no sum certain was

provided). Similarly the court declines to stay this action because the court lacks jurisdiction to

entertain the claim. A prematurely filed FTCA action cannot be remedied by presenting an

administrative claim to the agency after suit has been filed. See McNeil, 508 U.S. at 110-113.

In sum, the court grants the motion to dismiss the United States as a party. As the United

States is no longer a party to this action, and no other Defendant has sought to invoke federal

jurisdiction, the Clerk of Court is instructed to remand the action to state court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2006

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-01718-JM-LSP Document 15 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3