Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02493/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02493-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

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 

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

EDWARD A. OLSEN, CSBN 214150 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

E-mail: edward.olsen@usdoj.gov 

Telephone: (916) 554-2821 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TANEYA COOK, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; SCOTT V. 

PERRYMAN, M.D.; and DOES 1 through 30, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:19-CV-02493-TLN-CKD 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS CLAIMS 

AGAINST THE UNITED STATES; AND 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Taneya Cook, by and through her attorney of record, and the United States, by and 

through its attorneys of record, hereby stipulate to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the United 

States without prejudice and to remand Plaintiff’s claims against Scott Perryman, M.D. back to state 

court, based on the following: 

(1) Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Solano County Superior Court on October 4, 2019, alleging 

that OLE Health, Inc. (“Clinic”), two employees of the Clinic (Karen Kin Yan Chung, M.D. and Mara 

Adelman), and Scott Perryman committed medical malpractice. 

(2) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in Solano County Superior Court on November 20, 

2019. 

Case 2:19-cv-02493-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 01/10/20 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 

(3) The Clinic receives federal funding and both the Clinic and its employees (Karen Kin 

Yan Chung, M.D. and Mara Adelman) are deemed to be employees of the Public Health Service within 

the United States Department of Health and Human Services. See Federally Supported Health Centers 

Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233. 

(4) Because the Clinic is deemed to be a federal employee, tort actions against the Clinic and 

its employees (acting within the scope of their employment) arising from medical or related functions 

must be brought against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1346(b), 2671-80. See 42 U.S.C. § 233(a). 

(5) On December 13, 2019, the United States Attorney removed the state court action to 

federal district court and filed a certification that the Clinic, Dr. Karen Kin Yan Chung, and Mara 

Adelman were acting within the course and scope of their employment at the time of the events giving 

rise to this action. 

(6) As a result of the certification, the United States was substituted as the federal defendant 

in place of the Clinic, Dr. Karen Kin Yan Chung, and Mara Adelman by operation of law. See

42 U.S.C. § 233(c). 

(7) “A federal court’s jurisdiction to hear damage actions against the United States is limited 

by section 2675(a) of the FTCA.” Shipek v. United States, 752 F.2d 1352, 1353 (9th Cir. 1985); accord 

Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). 

(8) Section 2675(a) requires, as a prerequisite to suing the United States, that a plaintiff must 

first present his or her claim to the appropriate federal agency. Shipek, 752 F.2d at 1353. The plaintiff 

must then receive a denial of the claim or await the passage of six months before filing suit. Id. “The 

plaintiff is permitted to sue the United States only after the claim is denied or six months have elapsed 

without final disposition by the agency.” Warren v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 724 F.2d 776, 778 

(9th Cir. 1984) (en banc); see also See Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(“Section 2675(a) establishes explicit prerequisites to the filing of suit against the Government in district 

court. It admits of no exceptions.”); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 112-13 (1993) (stating that 

exhaustion of administrative remedies during the pendency of an action does not cure the failure to 

exhaust prior to filing the action). 

Case 2:19-cv-02493-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 01/10/20 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 

(9) Plaintiff has not yet exhausted an administrative tort claim with the United States

Department of Health and Human Service. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff and the United States agree that the claims against the United States must 

be dismissed without prejudice and that the matter (plaintiff’s claims against Scott Perryman, M.D.) may 

be remanded to state court. 

Dated: January 9, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

By: /s/ Edward A. Olsen 

EDWARD A. OLSEN 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Attorneys for the United States of America 

Dated: January 9, 2020 /s/ Caroline E. Gegg 

CAROLINE E. GEGG 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

ORDER 

 Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 9, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-02493-TLN-CKD Document 9 Filed 01/10/20 Page 3 of 3