Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02097/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02097-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Health and Human Services of the United States of America
Appellee
Alice Chee Nelson
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United State,; C.Ourt of Appeals 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALICE CHEE NELSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES OF THE UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Tenth Circuit 

NOV 2 6 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-2097 

(D.C. No. 89-C-1169-M) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Alice Chee Nelson, claiming to be a Navajo Indian, brought 

what is characterized as a mandamus action against the Department 

of Health and Human Services. The crux .of her claim is that a 

metal device installed in her broken arm by the Gallup Indian 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-2097 Document: 010110051360 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 1 
• Medical Center malfunctioned due to the negligence of employees at 

the medical center. She seeks both damages for the pain and 

suffering that she has incurred and future relief in the form of 

requiring the Indian hospital to operate and correct the 

malfunction. 

The surgery was performed on August 13, 1986, and she 

discovered the malfunction no later than July 7, 1987, when she 

filed an administrative tort claim seeking damages. ~he 

administrative claim was denied by a certified letter dated 

January 7, 1988, which, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 14.9, informed 

her that she could request reconsideration within six months or 

file suit. She did not act further until filing a second 

administrative court claim in March 1989, which again was denied. 

The instant_ suit was filed on October 27, 1989. 

Insofar as the action seeks monetary damages, it must be 

regarded as one pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 u.s.c. 

§§ 1346 and 2671 et seq., and barred by the statute of 

limitations. See id.§ 2401(b). We agree with defendant that 

United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979), controls. The 

statute of limitations commenced running at least upon discovery 

of the malfunction of the metal device in Nelson's arm and her 

filing of an administrative tort claim based upon her belief that 

the malfunction was caused by the negligence of hospital 

personnel. That the pain continues does not toll the statute or 

constitute a new tort as each new pain is experienced. With 

respect to medical malpractice action against this public health 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2097 Document: 010110051360 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 2 
service hospital, we agree that the exclusive remedy is the 

Federal Tort Claims Act. See 42 u.s.c. S 233. 

Nelson's action has another aspect, however, based upon 28 

u.s.c. S 1361. Under this mandamus provision, Nelson seeks an 

order compelling the Indian hospital to correct her injury. The 

Secretary insists that the FTCA is the only remedy here, and that 

the FTCA does not subject the United States to in:~nctive or 

equitable relief, citing Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 

(1956), and Midwest Growers Co-op Corp. v. Kirkemo, 533 F.2d 455, 

465 (9th Cir. 1974). He also insists that Nelson is being treated 

by the Gallup Indian Medical Center, as she admits, but that she 

simply differs from the hospital personnel in regard to the proper 

treatment. Plaintiff apparently has presented to the hospital an 

opinion of a private doctor that the metal piece should be 

removed; apparently the hospital will not remove it for her. This 

raises the question whether mandamus is available under the 

section cited, or there is a private right of action under any 

other section, enforceable by a legal action, to compel the Indian 

hospital to perform specific medical services desired by an 

Indian. 

While the FTCA is Nelson's exclusive remedy against the 

United States for damages for personal injury, it does not exclude 

relief in the form of mandamus. Mandamus, under 28 u.s.c. S 1361, 

however, is: to compel a government agency to perform a mandatory 

duty. 

Mandamus will issue "only where the duty to be performed is 

ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory, and plainly 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2097 Document: 010110051360 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 3 
• 

defined. The law must not only authorize the demanded action, but 

require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable." United 

States ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 283 U.S. 414, 420 (1931). See 

also Hadley Memorial Hosp •• Inc. v. Schweiker, 689 F.2d 905, 912 

(10th Cir. 1982). The issue of duty is largely one of 

congressional intent: "If Congress had an -intent with respect to 

the question at issue and if that intent was to create a 

man d a t ory, non d1.scre . t· 1.onary d t u y on th e par t f o ~~ -. .. e c ~~· ___ .:,_ c .::.a . 1( s ) 

charged with administering the [duty], then mandamus is 

appropriate (if no other remedy is adequate)." American Cetacean 

Soc'y v. Baldridge, 768 F.2d 426, 434 (D.C. Cir. 1985), rev'd on 

other grounds sub nom., Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean 

Soc'y. 478 U.S. 221 (1986). · . 

In the instant case, mandamus will not lie because there is 

no clearly defined, mandatory duty on the part of the Department 

of Health and Human Services to correct Nelson's injury as 

requested. Nothing in the regulations or statutes specifies a 

certain course of treatment. The Department of Health and Human 

Services is only directed to provide "the highest possible health 

status to Indians," 25 u.s.c. S 1602, and "contract health 

services, as medically indicated," 42 C.F.R. § 36.12(a). Such 

directives only place a duty on the Department to provide medical 

services to Indians; they do not specify a particular course of 

treatment. The treatment of individual patients is left to the 

discretion of the health care providers. When such discretion is 

given to the government, mandamus is inappropriate. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2097 Document: 010110051360 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 4 
.. 

• AFFIRMED. ·.-The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

-5-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-2097 Document: 010110051360 Date Filed: 11/26/1990 Page: 5