2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-27-2010 

# M onic a Whit e-S quire v

. U S P o s t al S e r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1577

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" M onica Whit e-S quir e v

. U S P os t al S e r " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1958. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1958P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 1577

M O N IC A W H IT E -S Q U IR E ; J O H N S Q U IR E , A p p e llan ts

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S P OST AL S ERVI CE
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 3- 08- cv- 03486 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e M aryL
. C ooper
Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL
. A
. R
. 34. 1( a)

J anuary15, 2010 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , BA RR Y, a n d S M I T H, C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: J anuary27, 2010)2 Jo h n G . M e n n ie R ich a rd S c h ib e ll Schi bel l M enni e & K ent os 1 8 0 6 H w y3 5 S o u th P. O
. B ox 2237 O cea n, N J 07712 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts M ark C
. O r l ow s ki O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney R oom 430 402 E as tSt at e St r eet T r ent on, N J 08608 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OP I NI ON
S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge
. T hi s appea l r equi r es us t o det erm i ne w hethera cl ai m ant u n d e r th e F e d e ra l T o rt C laim s A c t, w h o se d a m a g e s c o n tin u e to a c c ru e , m u st n e v e rth e les s s u b m it a c laim to th e a p p ro p ria te agenc ycont ai ni ng a “s um cert ai n ” fordamages pr i ort o fi l i ng s u i t
. Be c a u s e t h e s u m c e r t a i n r e q u i r e me n t i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , we ans w ert hi s ques t i on i n t he af fi r m at i ve.T he l et t ers t at ed thati tw as t o s erve as “f o r m al not i ce 1 undert he TortC l ai m s A ctpur s uantt o N. J

. S

. A. 5 9 :8

- 4 .” It d id not r efe r ence t he Feder al T or t C l ai m s A ct
. T he C om pl ai ntl at er fil ed to insti tute this acti o n ref ere n ce d o n lythe F ed e ral T o rt Cl a i ms Ac ta n d n o tNe w J e r s e yl a w. 3 I
. O n Jul y17, 2006, a U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce ( “U SPS ”) vehi cl e dri ven by a U SPS empl oy ee act i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of hi s empl oym ental l egedl y col l i ded w i t h a ca rdr i ven by Pl ai nt i ff M oni ca W h it e- Squi r e, caus i ng hers er i ous per s onal in ju ry . O n A u g u st 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , W h ite-S q u ire ’ s a tto rn e yse n t a l et t er to t he U SPS purpor t i ng t o pr ovi de form al not i ce that W h ite-S q u ire w a s p u rsu in g a p e r s o n a l in ju ryc laim a g a in st it. 1 T his l et t er di d n ot i nclude a sum cert ai n clai m for dam ages. T he U SPS r es ponded by l et t er on A ugus t18, 2006, and pr ovi ded W h it e- Squi r e’ s at t or neyw i t h t w o copi es of the St andar d For m 95 cl ai m for m . T he A ugus t18 l et t erout l i ned the ad m inistrati v e p rese n tm en t r eq u ir em en ts u n d er the F ed era l T o rt C laim s A c t (“ F T C A ” ), in c lu d in g th e re q u ire m e n t, w ritten in b o ld typ e f

a c e , th a t “ [ a ] c la im m u s t b e f o r a s p e c if

ic a m o u n t.” T he U SPS s entW hi t e- Squi r e’ s at tor neya s econd l et t er , dat ed A ugus t22, 2006, ex p l ai ni ng t hatW hi t e- Squi r e’ s A ugus t15 l et t er“does notcons t i tut e a va l i d cl ai m . ” The A ugus t22 l et t er al s o di r ect ed W hi t e- Squi r e t o t he st atut es and r egul at i ons governi ng t he pr ocedur es fors ubm i t t i n g a cl ai m undert he4 FT C A
. T he U SPS agai n i nfor m ed W hi t e- Squi r e thatt o s at i s fy t he ad m i ni s t r at i ve pr es entm entr equi r ement s , a cl ai m m us tbe acc om pani ed by“a ‘ s um cert ai n’ amount for i nj ur i es orl os s es a lle g e d to h a v e o c c u rr e d b yre a s o n o f th e in c id e n t.” I n a l et t ert o t he U SPS d at ed O ct ober6, 2006, W hi t eSqui r e’ s at t or ney acknow l edged r ece i ptof the A ugus t22, 2006, l et t er . H e al s o advi s ed the U SPS t hathe w oul d be s ubm i t t i ng W h ite-S q u ire ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s a n d a “ ‘su m c e rta in ’ d e m a n d to r es ol ve the cl ai m ” once W hi t e- Squi r e w as di s char ged fr om her doct or s ’ car e. W hi t e- Squi r e never s ubm i t t ed a compl et ed S tan d a rd F o rm 9 5 , su p p o rtin g m e d ica l re c o rd s, o r a su m c e rta in de mand fo rda mage s t o the U SPS. O n J ul y14, 2008, W hi t e- Squi r e fi l ed thi s act i on i n t he U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey agai ns tt he U S P S s eeki ng damages forper s onal i nj ur yar i s i ng fro m the co ll isi o n . P u rsua n t to Fe d era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 12( b) ( 1) , t he U SPS m oved t o di s m i s s t he ac t ion fo r lac k of su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n b e c a u se W h ite-S q u ire f a iled to pr ovi de the U SPS w i t h a s um cert ai n r eques tfordamages as re q u ir ed b y the F T C A
. 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 6 7 5 (a), (b); 2 8 C .F .R . § 14. 2( a)
. T he D i s t r i ctC ou rt gr ant ed the U SPS ’ s m ot i on and d is m iss e d th e c a se , co n c lu d in g th a t W h ite-S q u ire ’s f a ilu re to s u b mi ta s u m c e r t a i n c l a i m de p r i v e d i to f s u b j e c tm at t erW h it e-S q u ir e’s h u sb an d w as a p arty to this c ase b ef o re 2 t he D i s t r i ctC our t , and hi s cl ai m w as al s o di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. A l t hough he i s l i s t ed i n t he capt i on as an appe l l ant , he r ai s es no i s s ue i n t hi s appea l
. T hus , any pos s i bl e i s s ues r egar di ng t he di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m ar e w ai ved. Labore rs ’I

nt ’ lU ni on of N

. A m . v. F o ster W

heel erC or

p. , 26 F
. 3 d 3 7 5 , 3 9 8 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). 5 ju risd ictio n . W h ite-S q u ire tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. 2 II. W h it e-S q u ir e so u g h t t o inv o k e the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ubj ectm at t erj ur isdic t i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1346( b)
. For r eas ons t hatw e w i l l expl ai n i nfr a , t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ect i n concl u d ing tha ti tl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on over W hi t e- Squi r e’ s cl ai m ; how ever , “i ti s fami l i ar l aw t hat a fe der al c o u rt a lw a y s h a s ju ri s d ic tio n to d e te rm in e its o w n ju ri s d ic tio n .” U n itedS ta tes v . R u iz , 536 U
. S. 6 2 2 , 628 ( 2002) ( ci t at i on o m itte d ). A p p e lla te j u ri s d ic tio n is p ro p e r u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291. W hen re vi ew i ng an orde r di s m i s s i ng a cl ai m forl ack of s ubj ectm att er j ur i s di ct i on, w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew over lega l c o n c lusion s an d rev iew fin d ing s o f f ac t fo r clear e rror. C N A v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 3 5 F. 3d 132, 139 ( 3d C i r . 2008) (cit ati o n s o m itted).T he cl ai m m us tbe pr es ent ed t o t he appr opr i at e age ncy 3 w ith in tw o y e a rs a f

ter it a c c ru e s. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 0 1 (b ); see al so 6 III
. T he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded t hat i t l ack ed j ur i s di ct i on overW hi t e- Squi r e’ s cl ai m beca us e she fa i l ed t o pr ovi de the U S P S w ith a su m c e rta in c laim f o r da m a g e s p rio r to f

ili n g su it. W hi t e- Squi r e ar gues t hats he w as notr equi r ed t o s ubm i ta s um cer t a i n r e q u e s tb e c a u s e h e rme d i c a l t r e a t me n ta r i s i n g f r o m t he col l i s i on w as o n g o ing, and thus herdamages coul d notbe l i qui dat ed. A s a so v e re ig n , the U n ited S tate s is im m u n e f ro m su it u n le s s it c o n s e n ts to b e s u e d
. U n itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 44 5 U. S. 535, 538 ( 1980) ( quot i ng Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Sh e r wood , 31 2 U. S. 5 8 4 , 5 8 6 (1 9 4 1 )). Its c o n se n t to b e su e d m u st b e “ u n e q u iv o c a lly ex p resse d , ” a n d the term s o f s u c h c o n sen t def ine th e c o u rt ’s s u b je c t m a tte r ju ri s d ic tio n . I d. ( q u o t a t i o n s o mi t t e d )
. Th e F TCA oper at es as a l i m i t ed w ai verof the U ni t ed St at es ’ s s o v ere ign i m m u n ity. See R om a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 4 4 F. 3 d 3 5 2 , 362 ( 3d C i r. 20 03 ). “B ecause the Fed eral T ortC l ai m s A ctcon st i tutes a w ai verof s over ei gn i m m uni t y , the A ct ’ s es t abl i s hed pr ocedur es have been s t r i ct l ycons t rued. ” Li ver a v. F i rs tN at ’ lSt at e Bank of N

. J. , 879 F. 2d 1186, 1194 ( 3d C i r . 1989)
. “[W ] e s houl d not t ake i tupon our s el ves t o ext end the w ai ver b ey o n d t hatw hi ch C ongr es s i nt ended. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Kubr i ck , 444 U
. S. 111, 1 1 7 -18 (19 7 9 ). 3Kubr i ck , 444 U
. S. at117- 18 ( not i ng t hat t he tw o y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons “i s a condi t i on of th[e] w ai ver ” of s over ei gn im m u n ity ”). 7 T he FT C A i s codi fi ed i n s catt er ed s ect i ons of Ti t l e 28 of th e U n ited S ta te s C o d e . O n e se c tio n is § 1 3 4 6 , w h ich is cont ai ned i n chapt er 85 of t he Feder al J udi ci al C ode, per t ai ni ng t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of the di s t r i ct cour t s . Subse ct i on 1346( b) ( 1) provides: S u b jec t to th e p ro v isio n s o f c h a p te r 1 7 1 o f

th is t i t l e, t he d ist ri ctcour t s . . . s hal l have e xcl us i ve j ur i s di ct i on of ci vi l act i ons on cl ai m s agai ns tt he U n it ed S tat es, fo r m o n ey d am ag es, . . . fo r i n jury o r lo ss o f

p ro p e rty , o r p e rso n a l in ju ryo r d e a th cau s ed byt he negl i gentorw r ongful actor om i ssi on of anyempl oy ee of t he G overnm ent w hi l e ac t i ng w i t hi n t he s cope of h is o ffi ce or empl oym ent , underci r cumst ance s w her e t he U n ited S tate s, if a p riv a te p e rso n , w o u ld b e liab le t o t he cl ai m ant i n acc or dance w i t h t he l aw of the pl ace w her e the ac torom i s s i on occurr ed. 28 U
. S. C
. § 1346( b) ( 1)
. C hapt er171 of Ti t l e 28 pert ai ns t o t he t or tcl ai m s p roc ed u r e forFT C A cl ai m s . 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 2671- 2680. Sect i on 2675 m andat es t hatan F T C A act i on “s hal l not b e inst i tut ed upon a c l ai m agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es form oney damages
. . . unl es s t he cl ai m an t sh all have f i r s tpr es ent ed the c la i m t o t h e a p p ro p ri a te F e d e ra l a g e n c y. . . .” 2 8 U .S .C . §T he D epart m en t o f J us t i ce ha s al s o pr om ul gat ed the 4 fol l ow i ng r egul at i on, s peci fy i ng the mechani cs of pr es ent i ng a c l a i m: “[A ] claim shal l be dee m ed t o have be en p r e s e n t e d wh e n a F e d e r a l a g e n c yr e c e i v e s f r o m a cl ai m ant
. . . an exe cut ed St andar d For m 95 or o th e r w ritten n o tific a tio n o f a n in c id e n t, accom pan i ed bya cl ai m for m on eydam ages i n a s um cer t ai n f

o ri n j u r y t o o r l o s s o f

p r o p e r t y, per s onal i nj ur y , or death al l eged t o have oc curr ed b yre a s o n o f

th e in c id e n t . . . .” 2 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 4
. 2 (a) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 8 2675( a)
. Subse ct i on ( b ) f u rt hers peci fi es t hatan FT C A act i on
“ s h a l l n o tb e i n s t i tu t e d f o ra n ys u m i n ex c e s s o

f th e a mou n tof the clai m pr es ent ed

t o t he fe der al agenc y. . . . ” I d. § 2675( b) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h is p ro v isio n “ a n ticip a tes th a t th e c la im w i l l be for a defi ni t e amount
. ” A dam s v. U ni t ed Stat es , 615 F. 2d 284, 292 n. 17 ( 5t h C i r . 1 9 8 0)
. B eca us e the r equi r ement s of 4 pr es ent at i on and a de m and fora s um certai n ar e among t he term s d ef

ining the U n ited S tat es’s c o n sen t t o b e su ed , theyare ju ri s d ic tio n a l. Sher w ood , 3 1 2 U .S . a t 5 8 6 ; B i al ow as v. U ni t ed St at es , 443 F. 2d 1047, 1049 ( 3d C i r . 1971) ( not i ng t hatt he r eq u ir em ent t o pr es enta cl ai m t o t he age ncy“i s j ur i s di ct i onal an d ca n n o t be w aive d ”) (cit ati o n o m itted). I ndeed, i n C

N A v. U ni t ed Stat es , w e cons i der ed w hether9 j ur i s di ct i on overan FT C A cl ai m w as l acki ng i f the cl ai m antw as unabl e t o demonst r at e thata governm entempl oy ee ha d been ac ti ng w i t hi n t he s cope of hi s empl oym ent , as § 1346( b) ( 1) requi res . W e st a ted th at“[t ]o eval uate w hetherC on gress
‘ cl ear l ys t at ed’ t hata r equi r ements houl d ‘ countas j ur i s di ct i onal , ’ w e as k w hetherthe r equi r ementappea r s i n or r ece i ves m ent i on i n t he j ur i s di ct i onal pr o v isi on of a gi ven s t atut e. ” 535 F
. 3d at142 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng A rb a u g h v. Y

& H C or p. , 5 4 6 U. S. 5 0 0 , 5 1 5
- 1 6 & 5 1 5 n. 11 ( 2006) )
. W e not ed thatt he s cope of empl oym entr eq u i r ement “appear [ed] i n t he s ame se nt ence as C ongr es s ’ s gr antof j ur i s di ct i on. ” I

d. W e re i t er at ed t hatunder§ 1346( b) ( 1) , “ea ch clau se o f th at pro v isi o n rep rese n ts a li m it ati o n o n C o n g ress’s w ai vero f

s o v e r e i g n i mmun i t ya n d t h u s a l i mi t a t i o n o n f e d e r al cour t s ’ j ur i s di ct i on. ” I

d. B eca us e the s cope of empl oym ent r e q u i r e me n twa s “ t e t h e r [ e d ] ” t o t h e g r a n to f j u r i s d i c t i o n , we c o n c lu d e d th a t th e re q u ir e m e n t w a s ju ri s d ic tio n a l. I d. at143. I V. CNA is in s tr u c tiv e . H e re , alth o u g h th e su m c e rta in re q u ire m e n t is n o t se t f

o rth in th e tex t o f § 1 3 4 6 , th e su m c e rta in r equi r ementi s nevert hel es s t ether ed t o t he gr antof j ur i s di ct i on b ec au se § 1 3 4 6 sp ec ifi es a t th e o u tsetthat a d istri ct co u rt ’s j ur i s di ct i on overan FT C A cl ai m i s “[s ] ubj ectt o t he pr ovi s i ons of cha pt er171. ” 28 U
. S. C
. § 1346( b) ( 1)
. C hapt er171 cont ai ns § 2 6 7 5 , w h ic h s e ts f

o rt h th e s u m c e r t a in re q u ir e m e n t. I d. § 2 6 7 5 ( b )
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , t o r e mo v e a n yd o u b to n t h i s p o i n t , we10 h o ld th a t th e su m c e rta in re q u ire m e n t co n tain e d in § 2 6 7 5 (b ) is j u r i s d i c t i o n a l
. Th u s , a c l a i ma n t ’ s f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n th e rF TCA cl ai m t o t he appr opr i at e age ncyw i t h a s um cert ai n, as r equi r ed by§ 2675( b) , compel s t he conc l us i on t hata di s tr i ctcour tl acks s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h e c l a i m. W e ar e mi ndful of W h it e- Squi r e’ s cont ent i on t hather damage s cont i nued t o acc rue and pr ecl uded herfr om s t at i ng a s um cert ai n. H ow ever , nei t h er the F T C A nort he r egul at i ons p ro m u lg a ted th e re u n d e r c o n tain a n e x c e p tio n to th is s u m c e rta in r equi r ementw hen a c l ai m ant ’ s damages cont i n u e t o acc rue t hr ough t he tw o y ea rs fol l ow i ng acc rual of a c l ai m . A s s t at ed above, s over ei gn i m m uni t ycan onl yb e w ai ved byt he s over ei gn, and the “condi t i ons upon w hi ch t he G overnm ent cons ent s t o be su e d m u st b e stric tlyo b se rv e d a n d e x c e p tio n s th e re to a re n o t to be i m pl i ed. ” Sor i ano v. U ni t ed Stat es , 352 U
. S. 270, 276 ( 1957) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). C re a tin g a n e x c e p tio n to th e su m c e r ta in r equi r ement w oul d cons t i tut e a j udi ci al expans i on of the w ai ver of s over ei gn i m m u n i tye mbo d i ed i n t he FT C A , s om ethi ng w hi ch o n ly C o n g re s s c a n e f

f e c tu a te
. Kubr i ck , 444 U
. S. at117- 18. T hi s i s n o tt h e f

i r s tt i me we h a v e r e

j e c t e d a p r o p o s ed exce pt i on t o t he F T C A’ s a d mi n i s t r a t i v e p r e s ent m ent r equi r ement s . I n B i al ow as , 4 4 3 F .2 d a t 1 0 5 0 , w e re f u se d to excus e the fa i l ur e to fi l e an a dm i ni s t r at i ve cl ai m beca us e of “exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s. ” W e not ed that“[t ] hough s over ei g n, t he G overnm entcons i der at el ypr ovi ded [the cl ai m ant ] w i t h conveni ent an d expedi t i ous m achi neryfor11 se ttl e m e n t o f

h is a lleg e d d a m a g e s a n d in ju rie s. U n f

o rtu n a tely forhi m , he r epea t edl ydi s r egar ded w r i t t en and or al i ns t ruct i ons and eve ntual l ybeca m e t he ar chi t ectof hi s ow n m i s for tune. ” I d. M or eover , s ever al of our s i s t er cour t s of appeal s have de cl i ned t o cr eat e the veryexce pt i on W hi t e- Squi r e ur ges . Forexampl e, i n S u a r ez v . Uni t e d

S t a t es , 2 2 F .3 d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 6 5 -66 (11 th C ir
. 1994) ( percur i am), t he El eventh C i r cui tr efus ed t o cr eat e an ex ce p ti o n to the su m ce rt ain re q u ir em en t w h ere the c lai m an t’ s damages w er e unl i qui dat ed. I n Kokot is v. U ni t ed St at es P os t al Ser v. , 2 2 3 F .3 d 2 7 5 , 2 7 9 -8 0 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), th e F o u rth C irc u it dec li n ed t o cr eat e an e xcept i on t o t he s um cert ai n r equi r ement b e c a u se o f

th e c laim a n t’s o n g o in g tr e a tm e n t an d u n c e rta in ty r e g a r d in g th e e x ten t o f h e r d a m a g e s. It n o ted th a t “c o u rts cannoti ns er ti nt o t he FT C A admi ni s t rati v e pr oces s s peci al pr ovi s i ons t hatt he s t atut e does notcont ai n. ” I d. at 2 7 9
. T he N i nt h C i r cui tfol l ow ed s ui ti n B l ai rv. I

. R

. S. , 304 F. 3d 861, 868- 6 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e re , the c laim a n t se t f o rth a su m c e rta in f o r lo st w a g e s, b u t sta ted th a t h is m e d ic a l e x p e n se s w e re still bei ng i ncurr ed. T he C our tconcl uded thatt he cl ai m ants at i s fi ed th e su m c e rta in re q u ire m e n t f o r h is w a g e lo ss c la im , b u t h e ld t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on o v er t he cl ai m for m edi cal expens es as t he s um cert ai n r equi r ementhad no t be en m e t. I d. a t 8 6 6 -6 9
. W e jo in o u r sis ter c irc u its in h o ld in g th a t a cl ai m ant ’ s ongoi ng m edi cal t r eatm ent does notexemptherfr om th e ju risd ictio n a l o b lig a tio n to p re se n t a c laim f o r a su m c e rta in t o t he appr opr i at e age ncyas r equi r ed b y 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1346( b) an d 2 6 7 5 (a) & (b), an d 2 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 4
. 2 (a).12 V
. R e q u irin g p a rties to su b m it a su m c e rta in c laim b e f o re a ll l o s s e s h a v e a c c ru e d i s u n r e ma r k a b l e . Bo t h s e t t l e me n t s o f c l a i ms a n d d a m a g e s a w a rd s c o m m o n lyc o n tem p late c o sts th a t w ill a c c ru e in th e f

u tu re . See, e. g. , C am i ol o v. Stat e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. , 33 4 F
. 3d 34 5, 36 0-62 (3d C i r. 20 0 3 ); D om er ackiv. H um bl e O i l & Ref

. C o. , 443 F. 2d 1245, 1249- 50 ( 3d C i r . 1971) (no ti n g the “ elem en taryrule o f d am ag es” that a p erso n al i n jury p lai n ti ff sh o u ld b e c o m p en sated fo r fu ture loss es)
. “E v ery l i m i t at i on s pe r i od em bo dies t he p ossi bil i t yt hat a com plai nt m ust be fi l ed bef

or e the cl ai m ant ’ s know ledg e i s compl et e. T hat p o ssi bi l i t y , how ever , aff or ds no bas i s fordi s r egar di ng t he in ter e st o f

f in a litye m b o d ied in a sta tu te o f lim itatio n th a t a l egi s l at i ve body has chos en t o enac t
. ” Ko ko tis , 223 F. 3d at279 (c itatio n o m itt e d ); see al so Suar ez , 22 F. 3d at 1065-66 ( “A l t hough Suar ez cl ai m s t hathe has noty etr eac hed ful l m ent al h e a lth sin c e h is e n c o u n ter w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t, th is w ill nece s s ar i l ybe the ca s e i n a num ber of s i tuat i ons w her e a t or t i ous actoccur s . I ti s qui t e norm al for ful l r ecove r y , bot h phy s i cal and m ent al , t o r equi r e m or e t han t he t w o y ear s al l ow ed for t he fi l i ng o f a n ad m inistrati v e c lai m . ”). Fur t herm ore, w e not e thatW hi t e- Squi r e w as noti n t he p re d ica m e n t sh e c laim s s h e w a s. S h e a rg u e s th a t sh e w a s u n a b le t o pr e s e n ta s u m c e r t a i n c l a i m be c a u s e a d o c t o rr e c o mme nded th a t sh e u n d e rg o a d d iti o n a l p ro c e d u re s. T o th e c o n tra ry , this pr es cr i pt i on enabl ed h e r t o c o m p lyw ith th e su m c e rta in13 re q u ire m e n t: sh e c o u ld sim p ly h a v e a sk e d th e d o c to r to e stim a te th e c o st o f th e p ro c e d u re s a n d th e n h a v e in c lu d e d th a t es tim a te o n h er Stan d ard F o rm 9 5
. C f. , B i al ow as , 443 F. 2d at1049- 50 ( not i ng cl ai m antfai l ed even t o “att ach the doct or s ’ r epor t s or m ed ical b il ls a s d ir ec ted b y the instruction s o n the b ac k o f F o rm 9 5 ” ). If th e a c tu a l co st o f

tre a tm e n t p ro v e d h ig h e r th a n th is in iti a l es tim a te, W h ite-S q u ire c o u ld h a v e a m e n d e d h e r c laim to acc oun t f

o rt he di s par i t ybyt aki ng advant age of t he means p ro v id e d to d o s o . See 2 8 C .F .R . § 1 4 .2 (c ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 26 75 (b ). A cl ai m ant’ s fai l ure t o take adv antage of these ava il abl e pr ocedur es cannotj us t i fyj udi ci al t i nker i ng w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es ’ s w ai verof i t s s over ei gn i m m uni t yand the s ubj ect m at t er j uri sdi ct i on of the fede ral cou rt s. F in a lly , req u irin g a ll c la im a n ts to p re se n t a s u m c e rta in cl ai m fordamages advanc es C ongr es s ’ s purpos e i n r equi r i ng admi ni s t r at i ve p r e s e n tme n t , whi c h i s t o e ncour age the s et t l ement o f m e ri to ri o u s c la im s . Tucker v. U ni t ed Stat es P os t alSer v. , 676 F. 2d 954, 958 ( 3d C i r . 1982)
. T he G o vernm enthas “co ns i der at el ypr ovi ded [c l ai m ant s ] w i t h conveni entand expedi t i ous m achi neryfors et t l ement of [t hei r ] al l eged da m ages and i nj ur i es ” th r o u g h t h e a d mi n i s t r a t i v e p r e s ent m ent re q u ir e m e n ts
. B i al ow as , 443 F. 2d at1050. Pr om pts et t l ement of cl ai m s pr ovi des cons i der abl e benef i t s t o bot h t he court s and t he part i es byavoi di ng cos t l yl i t i gat i on and com pens at i ng t he in ju re d p a rt y in a tim e ly m a n n e r. Tucker , 6 7 6 F .2 d a t 9 5 8 ; s ee als o McN

ei l v. U ni t ed Stat es , 508 U
. S. 106, 112 ( 1993) ( not i ng t hatC ongr es s ’ s “i nt er es ti n [the] or der l yadmi ni s t r at i on of” the14 “vas t m ul t i tude of [FT C A ] cl ai m s ” i s “bes ts erved byadher ence t o the st r ai ght forw ar d s t atut or ycomm and”)
. Pr ovi di ng a s um cert ai n cl ai m fordamages i s centr al t o t hi s pol i cyof r equi r i ng present m ent of cl ai m s to the ap propri at e fed eral agen cybecau se i tenabl es t he a g encyhead t o det erm i ne w hethert he cl ai m can l egal l ybe s et t l ed byt he age ncyand, i f s o, fr om w her e the p a ym e n t s h o u ld c o m e . See 28 U
. S
. C
. § 2 6 7 2 ; B i al ow as , 443 F. 2d at1050. M or eover , i tgoes w i t houts ay i ng t hatan age ncy ca n n o t con side r sett li n g a claim if itca n n o t asce rt ain th e c lai m ’s val ue. V I. W hi t e- Squi r e w as aw ar e of the r equi r ementt hats he pr es enta s um cert ai n cl ai m for damages
. I n addi t i on t o t he t ext of the st atut e, 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1346( b) , 2675( b) , t he re gul at i on, 28 C
. F. R
. § 14. 2( a) , and o urpr i orcas e l aw confi r m i ng t he re q u ir e m e n t o f

su b m ittin g a s u m c e rt a in , s ee, e. g. , B i al ow as , 443 F. 2d at1049- 50, t he U SPS i nfor m ed W hi t e- Squi r e’ s couns el on t w o separat e o ccasi on s, t he A ug ust18 and A ug ust22 l et t ers , t hats he w as r equi r ed t o s ubm i t a sum cert ai n amount fori nj ur i es or l osses ari si ng from t he acci den t
. T he U S P S dir ect ed her to t he r el evantstat u toryand r egul at or ypr ovi s i ons and al s o s ent t w o St and ard F orm 95 cl ai m form s w i t h i nst ruct i on s in b o ld typ ef ac e tha t “[a ] claim m u st be fo r a sp ec ifi c a m o u n t.” N evert hel es s , W hi t e- Squi r e fa i l ed t o compl yw i t h t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr es entm entr equi r eme nt
. I n t he abs ence of a demand fora s um cert ai n j ur i s di ct i on i s l acki ng, and the D i s t r i ct15 C our tpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed her cl ai m . W e w i l l aff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.