Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01911/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01911-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1346t Tort Claim

---

1 

16cv01911 JAH-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

I. PEREZ, a minor, by and through his 

Guardian ad Litem, Israel Perez; and 

NORMA PEREZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al., 

Defendant. 

 Case No.: 16cv01911 JAH-MDD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO AMEND CLAIM AS 

MOOT [Doc. No. 81] 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to amend I. Perez’s SF-95 claim form. 

Plaintiffs maintain, prior to filing the instant lawsuit, I. Perez timely presented his 

Government Tort Claim/SF-95 to the United States which included an estimate of his future 

medical and care expenses at $20 million. They contend evidence presented at trial sets 

his future medical and care needs potentially in excess of $20 million. Plaintiffs maintain 

I. Perez could not possibly have known at the time he filed his claim that his treating 

pediatric neurologist would diagnose a lifelong seizure disorder and put him back on 

seizure medication after taking him off seizure medications and telling his mother that he 

was not having seizures. Plaintiffs further maintain I. Perez could not possibly have known 

that the level of care he would require all his life would be higher than anticipated, and 

Case 3:16-cv-01911-JAH-MDD Document 114 Filed 03/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

16cv01911 JAH-MDD 

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

therefore substantially more expensive. They argue the addition of the ongoing need for 

seizure medication/management and gastrostomy tube feedings proved to be significant 

newly discovered issues because they would elevate the skill level and cost of the attendant 

care I. Perez requires. They seek an order permitting I. Perez to amend the SF-95 claim to 

include and/or order that damages in excess of his SF-95 claim be allowed for, future 

medical and care expenses in an amount up to and including $30,769,862, present value. 

 In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ request is unnecessary and moot. 

Defendant contends Plaintiffs submitted a personal injury claim on behalf of I. Perez in the 

amount of $47,000,000 which consisted of $2,000,000 for past medical care; $20,000,000 

for future medical care; $5,000,000 for loss of earnings capacity; $10,000,000 for past pain 

and suffering; and $10,000,000 for future pain and suffering. Therefore, Defendant 

contends, the claim placed the United States on notice that I. Perez claims up to 

$47,000,000 for personal injury. Defendant argues, by operation of section 2675(b), I. 

Perez may recover no more than $47,000,000 in this action and need not separately itemize 

damages. Defendant further argues Plaintiffs do not present evidence of, and do not seek 

damages in excess of their administrative claim for personal injuries to I. Perez and, 

therefore, fail to show newly discovered evidence or intervening facts justifying relief 

under section 2675(b). 

 Plaintiffs did not file a reply and therefore, did not address Defendant’s argument 

that the motion is moot. 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2675(b) an 

Action under this section shall not be instituted for any sum in excess of the amount of the 

claim presented to the federal agency, except where the increased amount is based upon 

newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting the claim 

to the federal agency, or upon allegation and proof of intervening facts, relating to the 

amount of the claim. 

 In the Ninth Circuit, the minimum notice requirement of section 2675 “is satisfied 

by (1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin 

its own investigations and (2) a sum certain damages claim.” Burns v. United States, 764 

Case 3:16-cv-01911-JAH-MDD Document 114 Filed 03/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

16cv01911 JAH-MDD 

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

F.3d 722, 724 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Warren v. United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management, 724 F.2d 776 (9th Cir.1984); Avila v. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, 731 F.2d 616, 619 (9th Cir.1984); Adams v. United States, 615 

F.2d 284, 289 (5th Cir.1980)). 

 The Court agrees with Defendant that the United States was put on notice of a claim 

for I. Perez in the amount of $47 million and increasing the future medical and care needs 

amount to $30,769,862 does not exceed the claim amount. Accordingly. IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED Plaintiffs’ motion to amend I. Perez’s claim is DENIED as moot.

DATED: March 16, 2020 

 

 _________________________________ 

 JOHN A. HOUSTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-01911-JAH-MDD Document 114 Filed 03/16/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3