Opinion ID: 488510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Jurisdictional Requirement of Presentment

Text: 43 The presentment requirement of Section 2675(a) was added to the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1966. 88 Prior to this time, the Act provided for administrative settlement of claims only when valued at $2,500 or less; claimants seeking damages in greater amounts were required to file suit in court. 89 Recognizing that the Act's procedures resulted in the filing of large numbers of suits which might be settled out of court, Congress amended the Act in 1966 to remove statutory impediments to claim settlement, 90 and to impose upon claimants the responsibility of presenting a claim to the agency as a precondition to filing suit. As the House and Senate Reports 91 describe the purpose of the 1966 Amendments, the revised procedure was 44 intended to ease court congestion and avoid unnecessary litigation, while making it possible for the Government to expedite the fair settlement of tort claims asserted against the United States. In accomplishing these purposes, the more expeditious procedures provided by this bill will have the effect of reducing the number of pending claims which may become stale because of the extended time required for their consideration. The committee observes that the improvements contemplated by the bill would not only benefit private litigants, but would also be beneficial to the courts, the agencies, and the Department of Justice itself. 92 45 Congress never defined the presentment requirement it imposed upon claimants as a precondition to filing suit, but a fair understanding of the jurisdictional requirement imposed may be had by examining the statutory scheme Congress adopted and its statement of purposes in amending the Act. As a threshold matter, it should be observed that, in revising the procedure for filing claims, Congress manifested no interest whatsoever in restricting claimants' rights under the Federal Tort Claims Act or in restricting their access to the courts. To the contrary, Congress identified private litigants as the primary beneficiaries of the amendments. 93 The requirement of presentment it imposed on claimants was solely for the purpose of expediting settlement of claims in those instances where settlement was appropriate. The determination of whether settlement or suit was the appropriate course of action in a given instance was one Congress left in the claimants' hands. Section 2675(a) provides that when a claim is denied by an agency, the claimant may elect to sue; similarly, failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months of filing entitles the claimant any time thereafter to treat the claim as denied and file suit. 94 46 Not only did Congress leave the choice between settlement and suit in the ultimate control of the claimant; it fashioned the presentment process so as not unduly to delay that choice. The agencies were allowed six months, and only six months, to make final disposition of a claim before the option of filing suit returned to the claimant: 47 [I]f the agency fails to act in 6 months, the claimant may at his option elect to regard this inaction as a final denial and proceed to file suit. It is obvious that there would be some difficult tort claims that cannot be processed and evaluated in this 6-month period. The great bulk of them, however, should be ready for decision within this period. In some cases where the agency does not reach a decision in 6 months, the claimant may feel that the agency is seeking to reach a fair decision. Under such circumstances, the claimant might not wish to break off negotiations and file suit. Therefore even though this 6-month period may prove insufficient in some instances, the committee does not believe that this period ought to be enlarged to attempt to insure time for final decision on all claims. 95 48 Congress thus carefully tailored the presentment process so as to suspend the claimant's prerogative to sue under the Act for a period no greater than six months; [i]f a satisfactory arrangement cannot be reached in the matter, the claimant can simply do as he does today--file suit. 96 49 In sum, the 1966 amendments reverse a prior statutory preference in favor of suit, adopting a procedural framework which recognizes settlement and suit as two methods of claims resolution under the Act. It compels claimants to present claims to the agencies for disposition by settlement; but it does not compel claimants to submit to disposition of their claims by settlement. Rather, it unequivocally reserves the claimant's right to seek adjudication of the Government's liability in court if, after six months time, the claimant is dissatisfied with the agencies' disposition of the claim. 97 50 The presentment requirement takes meaning from the procedural framework established by the 1966 amendments. In mandating presentment of a claim, Congress instituted a procedure which might eventuate in settlement. 98 Presentment is mandatory; settlement is merely optional. 99 This distinction is crucial for courts called upon to determine their jurisdiction to hear claims under the Act. The requirement of presentment must not be construed to deprive claimants of the choice of forum for claims resolution carefully preserved by Congress in drafting the 1966 amendments. 100 In practical terms, this means we must distinguish between the presentment filing mandated by Section 2675(a) and the settlement procedures of Section 2672. Once we do so, it is apparent that the presentment requirement imposes on claimants a burden of notice, not substantiation, of claims. To conflate the mandatory presentment requirement of Section 2675(a) with the settlement procedures of Section 2672, and require claimants to substantiate claims for settlement purposes as a prerequisite to filing suit, is to compel compliance with settlement procedures contrary to congressional intent. 101 51 The distinction we draw between notice of claims required for purposes of presentment and the type of substantiation of claims which might be required for settlement purposes finds ample support in the committee reports, where Congress repeatedly characterized presentment as a simple requirement of notice. The presentment requirement, it observed, was one having precedent in numerous municipal tort claims statutes requiring that cities be given notice of an accident within a fixed time. 102 As the report observes the purpose of this notice [is] 'to protect the municipality from the expense of needless litigation, give it an opportunity for investigation, and allow it to adjust differences and settle claims without suit.'  103 In illustration, the report cites a section of the District of Columbia Code which requires claimants, as a condition to suit, to give notice by present[ing] ... in writing a claim for money damages. 104 Not only did Congress repeatedly characterize presentment as a requirement of notice, but it clearly contemplated that the filing of a presentment would initiate a settlement procedure in which the agencies were to investigate claims. 105 In short, Congress did not impose on claimants the burden of substantiating their claims as part of the presentment process, it made a statutory precondition to filing suit. 52 Thus we hold, with the Ninth Circuit and the majority of appellate courts to have considered the question, that Section 2675(a) requires a claimant to file (1) a written statement sufficiently describing the injury to enable the agency to begin its own investigation, and (2) a sum-certain damages claim. 106 Notice of an injury will enable the agency to investigate and ascertain the strength of a claim; the sum-certain statement of damages will enable it to determine whether settlement or negotiations to that end are desirable. A presentment of this character provides the agency all it needs, and all to which it is statutorily entitled, to make final disposition of the claim in accordance with Section 2675(a). Claimants who discharge this obligation of notice have satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the Act, and, with the running of the six-month period Congress has provided the agencies to make final disposition of claims presented, are entitled to file suit. 53 The Department of Justice has promulgated regulations governing the presentment process 107 which it contends govern the sufficiency of notice for jurisdictional purposes. 108 Some circuits have sustained the Department in this regard. 109 Along with the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits, we hold that Congress has not delegated to the agencies the power to determine, by regulation, the jurisdiction of Article III courts under the Act. 110 The sufficiency of presentments for jurisdictional purposes remains a matter for courts to determine in light of the statutory framework. We do hold, however, that claimants providing the agencies notice of a claim need provide no more information than the regulations specify for the initial presentment of a claim: an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification of an incident, accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum certain.... 111 54