Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-08160/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-08160-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Angela Hilgedick, surviving spouse of

L.D. Steven Gladestone, on her own

behalf and on behalf of Doreen Gladstone,

surviving mother of L.D. Steven

Gladstone, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

United States of America; Sue Collins,

P.C., an Arizona corporation; Walgreens

Oshkosh, Inc., a foreign corporation;

Walgreens National Corporation, a foreign

corporation, d/b/a Walgreens; Walgreen

Arizona Drug Co., a foreign corporation;

Walgreens Health Initiatives, Inc., a

foreign corporation, d/b/a Walgreens

Health Initiatives; WHP Health Initiatives,

Inc., an Illinois corporation; Walgreen

Pharmacy Services Western, L.L.C., a

foreign corporation; Walgreen Co., a

foreign corporation;

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-8160-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss

and Remand, and separate Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed on December 12,

2008. (docket ## 4-5) The United States contends Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their

administrative remedies by not timely filing administrative claims as 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a)

of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) requires. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106

Case 2:08-cv-08160-LOA Document 30 Filed 01/20/09 Page 1 of 6
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

 Defendant Sue Collins, P.C., an Arizona corporation, was also a named Defendant

but Plaintiffs concede they have “discovered during the course of this litigation [this

Defendant] is not related to this case.” (docket # 25 at 2)

- 2 -

(1993); Woodbeck v. U.S., 2008 WL 312104 (D. Ariz. 2008) (a remarkably similar case ).

Also pending for ruling is the United States’ Motion to Vacate Entry of Default filed in the

underlying State court action on the day after the action was removed to this Court. (docket

# 18) No other Defendant has appeared to date.

Plaintiffs do not oppose the Motion but “request[] that the Court rule on the

Motion to Vacate the Default Judgment prior to issuing a ruling on Defendant United States’

Motion to Dismiss and Remand.” (docket # 25 at 2) Plaintiffs do not explain the reason for

the requested sequence of rulings. The Court will grant the United States’ Motions, will

dismiss the federal employees without prejudice, and remand this case back to the Maricopa

County Superior Court for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this medical-negligence, wrongful-death action in the Superior

Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, on September 26, 2008, naming as

Defendants, among others: Sue Collins, FNP (Family Nurse Practitioner)1 and North

Country Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a North Country Community Health Center, an Arizona

corporation. (docket # 7) Subsequently, Defendants Collins and North Country were

“deemed to be employees of the Public Health Service [(“PHS”)],” United States

Department of Health and Human Services, during the relevant time of the conduct

complained of in the First Amended Complaint. (Id. # 7) The United States certified that

at the relevant time these Defendants were PHS employees. (docket # 5-3 at 10-11)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 233, the United States removed this

action to federal court on December 12, 2008. The United States, Defendants Collins and

North Country have consented in writing to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73(a), FED.R.CIV.P. (docket # 14 and # 20)

Case 2:08-cv-08160-LOA Document 30 Filed 01/20/09 Page 2 of 6
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 FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT

It is well-settled that the United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit

except as it consents to be sued and the terms of its consent define the parameters of a federal

court’s jurisdiction to entertain suits brought against it. Department of the Army v. Blue Fox,

Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 259 (1999) (“Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal

Government and its agencies from suit. [citation omitted] Congress, of course, has waived

its immunity for a wide range of suits, including those that seek traditional money

damages.”); Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U.S. 310 (1986); United States v. Orleans,

425 U.S. 807, 814 (1976); Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 30-31 (1952). As a

corollary to this general immunity principle, it is an accepted jurisprudential rule that “[n]o

action lies against the United States unless the legislature has authorized it.” Id. at 30.

The FTCA, which allows monetary recovery against the United States for loss

of property, personal injury or wrongful death caused by the negligent or wrongful acts or

omissions of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment, is a “limited

waiver” of the Government’s sovereign immunity. Graham v. United States, 96 F.3d 446,

448 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 117-18 (1979)).

“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475

(1994) (“Indeed, the terms of [the United States’] consent to be sued in any court define that

court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). If a plaintiff’s

claim falls outside the FTCA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity, the district court lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction. Wright v. United States, 719 F.2d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir. 1983);

Monaco v. United States, 661 F.2d 129, 131 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[a] number of statutory and

judicial exceptions limit the waiver, and if a claim falls within any such exception the court

is without jurisdiction to hear the case.”) (citations omitted).

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 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

with the scope of his office of employment, unless the claimant

Case 2:08-cv-08160-LOA Document 30 Filed 01/20/09 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

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. . . .

28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (emphasis added). Failure to comply with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2675(a) is an absolute bar to suit in any court. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106

(1993); Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000); Cadwalder v. United

States, 45 F.3d 297, 300 (9th Cir. 1995); Bryant v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 2d 953, 961

(D. Ariz. 2000).

PHS employees are covered under the FTCA pursuant to the Federally

Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995 (“FSHCAA”). 42 U.S.C. § 233;

Woodbeck, 2008 WL 312104, * 1 (citing McLaurin v. U.S., 392 F.3d 774, 777 (5th Cir.

2004)); Murrietta v. Banner Health System, 2006 WL 1663236, * 2 (D. Ariz. 2006). “[T]he

FSHCAA makes the FTCA the exclusive remedy for action against employees of the PHS

resulting from the performance of medical . . . or related functions and protects

commissioned officers or employees of [PHS] from being subject to suit while performing

medical and similar functions by requiring that such lawsuits be brought against the United

States instead.” McLaurin, 392 F.3d at 777 (internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

The United States argues that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege that

Plaintiffs filed an administrative claim and that the 28 U.S.C. § 2675 six-month waiting

period has expired. Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 640 (9th Cir. 1980) (“The timely

filing of an administrative claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the bringing of a suit under

the FTCA [citation omitted] and, as such, should be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.

A district court may dismiss a complaint for failure to allege this jurisdictional

prerequisite.”). Furthermore, the United States clearly establishes the Department of Health

and Human Services has no record of Plaintiffs’ pursuit of their administrative claim

remedies. (See, Declaration of Meredith Torres, attached to Notice of Removal; docket # 5-3

at 8-9). Significantly, Plaintiffs’ Response “certifies [they have] not filed an administrative

tort claim prior to filing suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346 (b) and

Case 2:08-cv-08160-LOA Document 30 Filed 01/20/09 Page 4 of 6
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

 Plaintiffs imply they will file such a claim because they have “60 days from the date

of this Court’s dismissal of the United States of America to file [their] administrative

claim[,]” citing 28 U.S.C.A. §2679 (d)(5). Without addressing the merits of such a filing,

like the Court in Woodbeck did, citing Marks v. United States, 2007 WL 3087157, at *1

(W.D. Wash. 2007) and Oeser v. Ashford, 2007 WL 1280584, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2007), the

dismissal herein will be without prejudice.

- 5 -

2671 et seq.” and do “not oppose Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss

for lack of Jurisdiction.”2

 (docket # 25 at 2) The Court finds the Maricopa County Superior

Court lacked jurisdiction over the PHS Defendants.

Concluding the Maricopa County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the

PHS Defendants when their default was entered, there is no need for the Court to address the

various reasons the United States contends its Motion to Vacate Entry of Default should be

granted. The United States’ Motion to Vacate Entry of Default will be summarily granted

because good cause exists that the Maricopa County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to

proceed against the PHS Defendants. Rules 55(c), FED.R.CIV.P. The case will be remanded

back to the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, for further

proceedings. Gallup v. Nail, 2007 WL 2471165, *2 (D. Ariz. 2007).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Vacate Entry of Default,

docket # 18, is GRANTED and hereby vacating the entry of default against Defendants Sue

Collins, FNP, and North Country Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a North Country Community Health

Center, an Arizona corporation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Dismiss and

Remand, docket # 4, is GRANTED and hereby dismissing Defendants Sue Collins, FNP,

and North Country Healthcare, Inc., d/b/a North Country Community Health Center, an

Arizona corporation, from Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. The dismissal is without

prejudice as to all Defendants except Defendant Sue Collins, P.C., an Arizona corporation,

which is dismissed with prejudice.

Case 2:08-cv-08160-LOA Document 30 Filed 01/20/09 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to remand this case to the

Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, for further proceedings and to

terminate this federal case.

DATED this 20th day of January, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-08160-LOA Document 30 Filed 01/20/09 Page 6 of 6