Court Opinion

ID: 2963559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:03.642887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.154609
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 94-2259

                                   RALPH J. MILLER,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior  U.S. District Judge]
                                          ___________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ralph J. Miller on brief pro se.
            _______________
            Paul M.  Gagnon, United  States Attorney, and Gretchen  Leah Witt,
            _______________                               ___________________
        Assistant United  States Attorney, Chief Civil Division,  on brief for
        appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                    July 24, 1995
                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.    Pro se  plaintiff  Ralph  Miller, a
                      ___________     ___ __

            former postal employee,  filed this action under  the Federal

            Tort  Claims  Act  (FTCA)  to  recover workers'  compensation

            benefits  that the Department  of Labor's Office  of Workers'

            Compensation Programs  (OWCP) denied  him  under the  Federal

            Employees Compensation Act (FECA), 5 U.S.C.  8101 et seq.  He
                                                              __ ____

            appeals a district court order that dismissed  this action on

            the ground that Miller's claim is  preempted by the FECA.  We

            affirm the dismissal,  but we prefer to rest  our decision on

            the  ground that  Miller failed  to  satisfy the  presentment

            requirements of the FTCA, 28 U.S.C.  2401(b).

                                          I.

                 We begin with  the relevant facts.   Miller was employed

            by the United  States Postal Service from  approximately 1981

            to  1992.  On   March  12,  1990,  Miller  filed  a  workers'

            compensation  claim that alleged  that he was  suffering from

            depression as  a result  of the  way  his postmaster  treated

            him.1   The  OWCP denied  Miller's claim  on the  ground that

            Miller  failed to submit sufficient medical evidence to prove

            that  his condition  was  caused by  his  employment.   While

            Miller  appealed this  decision,  he  subsequently failed  to

            appear at the  hearing that the OWCP  scheduled.  Thereafter,

            Miller  filed  an   administrative  FTCA  claim  for   "work-

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Miller  claimed that  he  first  became  aware  that  his
            depression  was related  to his  employment  on February  12,
            1989.

            aggravated  mental  depression"  with the  Assistant  General

            Counsel for  the Postal Service.   That claim  sought damages

            equal  to the  amount  that  Miller claimed  was  due him  in

            workers'  compensation  benefits.    Thus,  Miller  filed  an

            administrative claim under  the FTCA to recover  the workers'

            compensation benefits that  the OWCP had denied him under the

            FECA.   After more than  six months passed without  action by

            the  Postal Service, Miller commenced this civil action under

            the FTCA.2   

                 The government  filed a  motion to  dismiss pursuant  to

            Fed.  R.   Civ.  P.  12(b)(1)   and  12(b)(6),  or,   in  the

            alternative,  for  summary  judgment.3   It  argued  that the

            district  court lacked  subject  matter jurisdiction  because

            Miller's  FTCA suit  was  simply an  attempt  to redress  the

            OWCP's  denial of  Miller's workers'  compensation claim  and

            judicial  review of the  OWCP's decision was  prohibited by 5

            U.S.C.  8128(b).4   Relying on McDaniel v. United States, 970
                                           ________    _____________

                                
            ____________________

            2.  28 U.S.C.  2675(a) provides that the failure of an agency
            to  make a final disposition of  an administrative FTCA claim
            within 6  months after  it is filed  shall be deemed  a final
            denial  sufficient to  authorize the  filing of  a  FTCA suit
            against the United States. 

            3.  Miller's original complaint named the Postal Service, the
            Department  of Labor,  and the  OWCP as defendants.  He later
            amended  his complaint to substitute the United States (i.e.,
            "the government") for the other named defendants.

            4.  5 U.S.C.  8128(b) provides, in relevant part, that:

                      The  action  of  the  Secretary  or   his
                      designee in allowing or denying a payment

                                         -3-

            F.2d 194,  197 (6th  Cir. 1992)(per  curiam), the  government

            further  argued that the district court lacked subject matter

            jurisdiction  despite the fact  that Miller's FECA  claim had

            been denied.5    

                 Miller  opposed the government's motion.  He argued that

            the FECA does  not cover emotional injuries such  as those he

            sustained  as  a  result  of  his  postmaster's  campaign  of

            harassment against him.6   The district court  concluded that

            the FECA does not encompass claims for emotional distress and

            denied the government's motion.  The court based its decision

            on the FECA's definition of injury in 5 U.S.C.  8101(5)(which

            does not specifically refer to mental or emotional injuries),

            Sheehan v.  United States, 896  F.2d 1168, amended,  917 F.2d
            _______     _____________                  _______

                                
            ____________________

                      under this subchapter is -

                      (1) final and conclusive for all purposes
                      and  with respect to all questions of law
                      and fact; and

                      (2)  not subject  to  judicial review  by
                      another official of the  United States or
                      by a court by mandamus or otherwise.

            5.  McDaniel held that  where it was clear that the Secretary
                ________
            of Labor viewed  the plaintiff's emotional distress  claim as
            cognizable  under the FECA,  the FECA barred  the plaintiff's
            FTCA  suit  for  intentional  and  negligent   infliction  of
            emotional distress  even though  the plaintiff  had not  been
            awarded FECA benefits.

            6.  Miller thus implied that his federal tort claim was based
            on the  theory that his  postmaster had subjected him  to the
            intentional  infliction  of emotional  distress.  Miller also
            suggested that the OWCP had intentionally inflicted emotional
            distress upon him by denying his workers'compensation claim. 

                                         -4-

            424  (9th Cir. 1990)(holding  that 5 U.S.C.   8128(b) did not

            preclude  district  court  from  determining  what  types  of

            injuries were covered by the  FECA and that the FECA did  not

            cover  emotional distress claims) and numerous other cases.7 

                 The  government  petitioned  to  take  an  interlocutory

            appeal from the district court's order, but this court denied

            that  petition.  Limited discovery followed.8  The government

            then  filed  a  second  motion  to dismiss  which  asked  the

            district court to reconsider its previous ruling in the light

            of recent decisions that had recognized the FECA's preclusive

            effect   in  cases   involving  emotional  injuries.9     The

                                
            ____________________

            7.  See, e.g., Guidry v. Durkin,  834 F.2d 1465, 1471-72 (9th
                ___  ____  ______    ______
            Cir. 1987); Gergick v. Austin, 764 F. Supp. 580, 581-82 (W.D.
                        _______    ______
            Mo. 1991); Underwood v. United States Postal Service,  742 F.
                       _________    ____________________________
            Supp. 968  (M.D. Tenn. 1990);  Metz v. United States,  723 F.
                                           ____    _____________
            Supp.  1133, 1136  (D. Md.  1989); Newman  v.  Legal Services
                                               ______      ______________
            Corporation, 628 F. Supp. 535, 543 (D.D.C. 1986); Sullivan v.
            ___________                                       ________
            United States, 428 F. Supp. 79, 81 (E.D. Wis. 1977); Mason v.
            _____________                                        _____
            District of Columbia, 395 A.2d 399 (D.C. 1978).    
            ____________________

            8.   We note  that Miller's motion to amend  his complaint to
            specifically   allege  that   the  government   intentionally
            inflicted  emotional distress  on  him  when  it  denied  his
            workers' compensation  claim was  denied on  the ground  that
            such an amendment would be  futile since Miller had failed to
            present this claim to the appropriate federal agencies in his
            administrative FTCA claim.  

            9.  The government relied on Tarver v. United States, 25 F.3d
                                         ______    _____________
            900 (10th Cir. 1994); Figueroa  v. United States, 7 F.3d 1405
                                  ________     _____________
            (9th  Cir.  1993),  cert. denied,  114  S.  Ct. 1537  (1994);
                                _____ ______
            Swafford v.  United States, 998  F.2d 837  (10th Cir.  1993);
            ________     _____________
            Jones v. Tennessee  Valley Authority, 948 F.2d 258  (6th Cir.
            _____    ___________________________
            1991); Klescewski v.  United States, 843 F. Supp. 543 (D.S.D.
                   __________     _____________
            1993); Castro v. United States, 757 F. Supp. 1149, 1151 (W.D.
                   ______    _____________
            Wash.  1991); and  Cardwell v.  United  States, 1992  WESTLAW
                               ________     ______________

                                         -5-

            government also argued  that Miller's suit was barred  by the

            Civil  Service Reform Act  (CSRA) and the  FTCA's presentment

            requirement.   After Miller filed an opposition, the district

            court   reversed  its   previous   ruling  and   granted  the

            government's  motion to dismiss.  Relying on McDaniel, supra,
                                                         ________  _____

            inter alia,  the court held  that Miller's FTCA suit  for the
            _____ ____

            intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted by

            the FECA  and that any other  claims that might be  read into

            Miller's complaint were  barred by the  CSRA.10  This  appeal

            followed.

                                         II.

                   We review the  district court's dismissal for  lack of

            subject  matter jurisdiction de novo, mindful that Miller, as
                                         __ ____

            the  party invoking federal  jurisdiction, has the  burden of

            proving its existence.  See  Murphy v. United States, 45 F.3d
                                    ___  ______    _____________

            520,  522 (1st Cir.),  cert. denied,  63 U.S.L.W.  3800 (U.S.
                                   _____ ______

            June  19, 1995).  He has failed to do so.  Miller stresses on

            appeal  that  he   seeks  to  recover  for   the  intentional

            infliction  of  emotional  distress in  the  handling  of his

            workers' compensation  claim.   But it  is clear  that Miller

                                
            ____________________

            368495 (E.D. Pa. Dec.  4, 1992), aff'd,  6 F.3d 778 (3d  Cir.
                                             _____
            1993)(Table), as well as numerous decisions of the Employment
            Compensation Appeals  Board (ECAB) which  indicated that  the
            FECA can provide  relief for  claims of  emotional or  mental
            injury.  

            10.  The  court did not reach the government's arguments that
            Miller failed to satisfy the FTCA's presentment requirements.

                                         -6-

            never  presented this claim  to either the  Postal Service or

            the OWCP within two  years of the denial  of his FECA  claim.

            Rather, Miller's  administrative  FTCA claim  focused on  the

            mental injuries he allegedly suffered as a result of his work

            place atmosphere.  Miller did not allege or describe anything

            approaching  outrageous   conduct  in  the  handling  of  his

            workers' compensation  claim.   It  is  well settled  that  a

            plaintiff's  FTCA claim will  be "forever barred"  absent the

            filing  of a timely administrative claim with the appropriate

            federal agency. See, e.g., Gonzalez-Bernal v.  United States,
                            ___  ____  _______________     _____________

            907 F.2d 246,  248 (1st Cir. 1990).  As Miller failed to file

            a  timely  administrative  FTCA  claim  for  the  intentional

            infliction  of  emotional  distress in  the  handling  of his

            workers' compensation case, this claim is forever barred.

                 Miller  does not press  on appeal the  alternative basis

            for relief that  he argued below, i.e., that  he suffered the

            intentional infliction of  emotional distress as a  result of

            his former postmaster's conduct.  Accordingly, this claim has

            been waived.   See United States  v. Zannino, 895 F.2d  1, 17
                           ___ _____________     _______

            (1st Cir.),  cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1092  (1990).  Even if it
                         _____ ______

            were otherwise, this claim also  fails for the lack of timely

            presentment.  It is undisputed that Miller first became aware

            that  his depression was  work-related on February  12, 1989.

            He therefore had two years  from that date, or until February

            12, 1991, to file his administrative FTCA for the intentional

                                         -7-

            infliction of  emotional distress  by his  former postmaster.

            Miller did not file such a  claim until October 8, 1991.   As

            the administrative FTCA claim was filed too late, this  claim

            is also barred.

                 We  note that whether the FECA covers emotional injuries

            and, even if it does,  whether Miller's FTCA action is barred

            despite  the fact  that he  was not  paid FECA  benefits, are

            novel issues in  this circuit.  We recognize  that cases such

            as McDaniel, Tarver, and Cardwell, supra, support affirmative
               ________  ______      ________  _____

            answers to  both questions.   On the  other hand, there  is a

            considerable  body of caselaw  which indicates that  the FECA

            does not apply to emotional injuries.  See Sheehan and n.  7,
                                                   ___ _______

            supra.  We find  it unnecessary to take  a position on  these
            _____

            important issues  -  which  have  not been  well  briefed  by

            Miller.11   It  is  apparent that  Miller's  suit  is  barred

            under the FTCA.   We are free to affirm  on any independently

            sufficient ground  made manifest by  the record.   See, e.g.,
                                                               ___  ____

            Garside v.  Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 49 (1st Cir. 1990).
            _______     _______________

            In   view  of  our  disposition,  we  need  not  address  the

            government's  contentions that  the CSRA  also  bars Miller's

                                
            ____________________

            11.  Rather, Miller argues that Martin v. Travelers Ins. Co.,
                                            ______    __________________
            497 F.2d 329 (1st Cir. 1979), authorizes him to sue under the
            FTCA  for   the  bad   faith  processing   of  his   workers'
            compensation claim, and that  Burke v. United States,  644 F.
                                          _____    _____________
            Supp. 566  (E.D. La. 1986),  also authorizes him  to maintain
            this suit because he was  denied FECA benefits.  Neither case
            stands  for  the  proposition  for  which  Miller  cites  it.
            Moreover, the  language that  Miller purports  to quote  from
            Martin appears nowhere in that case.   
            ______

                                         -8-

            claims.  Accordingly,  the judgment of the district  court is

            affirmed.  
            _________

               

                                         -9-