Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01032/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01032-2/pdf.json

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

---

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 - 08cv1032

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONAL J. KISKILA; DONNA E. KISKILA,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08cv1032 JM(CAB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

vs. DISMISS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Defendant United States of America moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h). Plaintiffs Ronal J. Kiskila

and Donna E. Kiskila oppose 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

court grants the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges two claims arising

under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b), 2671-2680. Mr.

Kiskila alleges a single claim for medical malpractice and Mrs. Kiskila a single claim

for loss of consortium. 

The claims at bar arise from an October 18, 2005 office visit for medical

treatment received by Mr. Kiskila at the VA medical clinic located in Escondido,

California. (FAC ¶12). Mr. Kiskila received medical treatment from Dr. Osvaldo

Case 3:08-cv-01032-JM-BGS Document 26 Filed 10/19/09 Page 1 of 4
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 - 08cv1032

Lopez, an alleged employee of the Untied States Department of Veterans Affairs

(“VA”). Id. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “negligently and unlawfully failed to

properly and correctly diagnose, render care and treatment, to perform proper surgery

on, prescribe and administer medicine and drugs for the condition of” Mr. Kiskila. Id.

As a result of Mr. Kiskila’s “physicians and personnel to properly diagnose and monitor

Mr. Kiskila, he underwent a cardiac event.” Id. Plaintiffs seek to be compensated for

their injuries.

DISCUSSION

The FTCA provides “a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for certain torts of

federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.” United States v.

Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 813-14 (1976). The burden of establishing waiver rests with the

party asserting jurisdiction. Holoman v. Watt, 708 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1983). 

The FTCA waives sovereign immunity for injuries “caused by the negligent or

wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while action within the

scope of his office of employment.” 28 U.S.C. §1346(b). Specifically excluded from

the definition is an employee of “any contractor with the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

§2671. The Supreme Court instructs that “due regard must be given to the exceptions,

including the independent contractor exception” to the FTCA. Orleans, 425 U.S. at

814. 

Here, the United States comes forward with substantial evidence to show that 

Dr. Lopez is a contract physician, and not a federal employee. The VA contracted with

CR Associates, the employer of Dr. Lopez, to operate the VA medical clinic in

Escondido. (Smith Decl., Exh. 2; Vallapando Decl., Exh. 3). The contract between the

VA and CR Associates clearly provides that the Untied States retained no control over

the professional services rendered at the Escondido VA clinic by Dr. Lopez and that CR

Associates’ employees were not covered by the FTCA. (Exh. 4). In light of this

showing, there is no doubt that Dr. Lopez is an independent contractor within the

meaning of the FTCA.

Case 3:08-cv-01032-JM-BGS Document 26 Filed 10/19/09 Page 2 of 4
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 - 08cv1032

Plaintiffs raise four main arguments in opposition to the Government’s motion.

First, Plaintiff’s argue that Dr. Lopez is a federal employee. They cite to portions of the

contract indicating that the CR Associates had to file certain workload and other clinical

data daily to the VA. The Supreme Court has rejected similar arguments. “[B]y

contract, the Government may fix specific and precise conditions to implement federal

objectives. Although such regulations are aimed at assuring compliance with goals, the

regulations do not convert the acts of entrepreneurs or of state governmental bodies into

federal governmental acts.” Orleans, 425 U.S. at 816. Second, Plaintiffs argue that

state law principles of agency apply to preclude the Government from arguing that Dr.

Lopez is an independent contractor. This argument is not persuasive because such

issues are a matter of federal, and not state, law. See Logue v. United States, 412 U.S.

5221, 528 (1973). Third, Plaintiffs argue that the CR Associates contract is not

authentic because AUSA Reeves attached page 41 to a transmittal letter but that page

does not coincide without contract documents submitted by the Government as Exhibit

4. Although not perfectly clear from the parties’ submissions, as noted by the

Government, the entire 73 page contract was provided to them as a supplemental

disclosure under Rule 26. The court further notes that Exhibit 4 includes the

amendments to the modification of the original contract and it appears that the

Government inadvertently produced page 41 of the original contract, and not the

modified one. (Gov’t oppo. at p.4:17-20). Fourth, Plaintiffs argue that the Government

should be estopped from arguing that Dr. Lopez and CR Associates are independent

contractors for purposes of the FTCA. At the latest, Plaintiffs were aware of Dr.

Lopez’s affiliation with CR Associates in 2006. Mrs. Kiskila testified that she obtained

a business card from Dr. Lopez right after Mr. Kiskila’s heart attack. The business card

identifies CR Associates in large letters, lists Dr. Lopez as a medical director and sets

forth the address of the Escondido VA Clinic. (Gov’t Exh. 11). There is simply no

indication that the VA concealed Dr. Lopez’s affiliation with CR Associates such that

principles of estoppel come into play.

Case 3:08-cv-01032-JM-BGS Document 26 Filed 10/19/09 Page 3 of 4
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 - 08cv1032

In sum, the court concludes that the United States cannot be held liable for the

acts of independent contractor Dr. Lopez. That is not to say that Plaintiffs cannot assert

a claim against Dr. Lopez or CR Associates. Rather, this order only dismisses with

prejudice the claims against the Untied States. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close

the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01032-JM-BGS Document 26 Filed 10/19/09 Page 4 of 4