Estate of Vera Cummings v. United States ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT June 24, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
ESTATE OF VERA CUMMINGS, by and
through Personal Representative Elicia
Montoya,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-2044
(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-00081-WJ-GBW)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (D. N.M.)
MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER
_________________________________
Before KELLY, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This matter is before the court on appellee Mountain View Regional Medical
Center’s Motion for Clarification, which we have construed as a petition for panel
rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 40. Upon consideration, and as construed, the request is
granted to the extent of the change made to the last sentence on page 13 in the revised
decision attached to this order. The clerk of court is directed to file the new Order &
Judgment forthwith.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 24, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
ESTATE OF VERA CUMMINGS, by
and through Personal Representative
Elicia Montoya,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 15-2044
(D.C. No. 1:12-CV-00081-WJ-GBW)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; (D.N.M.)
MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, MATHESON, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
The Estate of Vera Cummings, by and through personal representative
Elicia Montoya, brought this action in state court for medical negligence and
wrongful death against three doctors (Mark Leatherwood, M.D., Raquel Neeley,
M.D., and Enrique R. Martinez, M.D.) and Mountain View Regional Medical
Center, a private, for-profit hospital in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Substituting
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
itself for the defendant doctors, the government removed the case to federal court,
where the district court granted summary judgment to the private hospital after a
discovery dispute. Then, determining the doctors were federal actors triggering
the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2401(b), 2671–74,
the court dismissed the remaining claims against the government for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the claims against the government, but
vacate its rulings against Mountain View with instructions to the district court to
remand the case to state court.
Background
On January 28, 2008, Ms. Cummings was admitted to the emergency
department at Mountain View when she suddenly became dizzy and confused.
After being treated by doctors for about 10 days, she was released to another local
health care facility where her daughter worked as nurse. Four days later, on
February 10, 2008, she died.
In January 2011, nearly three years after her death, Ms. Cummings’s estate
sued the doctors and Mountain View for medical negligence and wrongful death
in New Mexico state court, alleging the doctors improperly medicated her and
failed to feed or hydrate her. In April 2011, the doctors’ insurance carrier
informed the estate that the government may consider the doctors to be federal
-2-
actors. See Aplt. Br. at 8. The estate then notified the appropriate federal agency
by filing a standard notice form (an SF 95).
In January 2012, the government certified that the doctors were federal
employees at the federally funded Ben Archer Health Clinic in Hatch, New
Mexico, and when they treated Ms. Cummings at Mountain View, they were
acting within the scope of their federal employment. The government removed
the case to federal court and substituted itself for the defendant doctors. The
estate challenged the removal and lost. Over the next three years, the court issued
three separate orders that are the foundation for this appeal.
A. The court holds that the doctors were acting within the scope of
their federal employment
In 2012, the government filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative a
motion for summary judgment, arguing that the estate failed to comply with the
FTCA, which applied because the doctors were acting within the scope of their
federal employment when they treated Ms. Cummings. In response, the estate
disputed that the doctors were federal actors for purposes of the suit and
maintained that the FTCA did not apply. After allowing for written discovery,
the court found that the doctors were acting within the scope of their federal
employment when they treated Ms. Cummings at Mountain View, and thus, the
FTCA was the estate’s only path to recovery. The court ordered additional
briefing on whether the estate had complied with the FTCA in pursuing its claims
-3-
against the government.
B. The court grants summary judgment to Mountain View in part
based upon a failure to timely designate an expert
After a discovery deadline extension, the magistrate judge provided that the
estate had to designate its experts and provide reports by May 1, 2014. Because
of an oversight by its counsel, the estate failed to do so. On June 1, Mountain
View designated its experts, provided reports, and moved for summary judgment
on all claims. The estate responded with an unsworn report from an expert and
asked the court to defer a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. After
briefing closed, the estate obtained a contested extension to designate an expert
by August 1, 2014, which it did. Meanwhile, the case was reassigned and the
newly assigned district judge granted summary judgment after sua sponte
overruling the magistrate’s grant of an extension. The district court denied
reconsideration of the matter.
C. The court dismisses the claims against the government for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction
In November 2014, the estate and the government filed cross motions for
summary judgment. The estate claimed that the government failed to offer any
evidence to rebut its expert report that alleged the doctors did not adhere to
applicable standards of care; the government argued that report was untimely, and
therefore inadmissible, so the estate failed to carry its burden of proof. A month
later, the government filed another motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked
-4-
jurisdiction because the estate’s claims were untimely filed under the FTCA. In
February 2015, the district court dismissed the estate’s claims against the
government sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Discussion
On appeal, the estate challenges three of the district court’s rulings: (1) the
FTCA applies because the doctors were working within the scope of their federal
employment when they treated Ms. Cummings at Mountain View; (2) the estate
failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the FTCA; and (3) Mountain
View is entitled to summary judgment. To prevail against the government, the
estate must show either that the doctors were not acting within the scope of their
federal employment when they treated Ms. Cummings or that the estate satisfied
the FTCA’s requirements. To prevail against Mountain View, the estate must
show that disputed, material facts preclude summary judgment or that federal
jurisdiction over these state claims never existed.
We review the district court’s determinations de novo. Radil v. Sanborn
W. Camps, Inc., 384 F.3d 1220, 1224 (10th Cir. 2004) (de novo review for
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Richman v. Straley, 48 F.3d
1139, 1145 (10th Cir. 1995) (de novo review for certification that employees were
acting within the scope of their federal employment). We apply the same
summary judgment standard as the district court, specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P.
-5-
56(a), to determine whether “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
A. The doctors are federal actors for purposes of this suit
The estate first argues that the defendant doctors were not acting within the
scope of their federal employment when they treated Ms. Cummings at Mountain
View, the private hospital. Although federal employees, 1 the doctors treated her
at the private hospital where they occasionally staffed the emergency department
for extra pay. After examining the doctors’ responsibilities for Ben Archer (the
federal clinic) and the private hospital, the district court held that the doctors
were federal actors for purposes of this lawsuit. We agree.
Some explanation of the structure of the federal clinic and the private
hospital is necessary first. The federal clinic employs all three defendant doctors
and requires them to care for their patients at the clinic and at local hospitals. II
Aplt. App. 645 (“The physician will provide health care within and outside the
clinic for clinic patients and in emergencies for the general public.”). To
facilitate this requirement, the clinic ensures that a rotating doctor is available on
nights and weekends (the clinic call schedule) to attend to hospitalized patients,
see id. at 668, and requires that all clinic doctors have admitting privileges at a
1
The parties agree that at the time of Ms. Cummings’s death, the
defendant doctors were employed by Ben Archer Health Clinic (the federal
clinic), and the clinic and its employees acting within the scope of their federal
employment can only be sued according to the parameters of the FTCA. See 42
U.S.C. § 233(a), (g)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
-6-
local hospital, see id. at 654. The doctors with admitting privileges at Mountain
View must also adhere to the private hospital’s conditions, including staffing the
emergency department at the private hospital on certain nights and weekends (the
city call schedule). Id. at 668–69. While on the city call schedule, they admit
patients who arrive at the emergency departments to the private hospital. Once
admitted, the patients’ regular medical providers will assume their care, and if
patients lack a primary care doctor, then the admitting physician will continue
their treatment at the private hospital. Id. Clinic doctors with admitting
privileges at Mountain View must participate in both call schedules, and they are
paid differently depending on which call schedule is in effect. Id. When working
on the clinic call schedule, the doctors receive a percentage of the fee earned
when clinic patients are treated at local hospitals, including Mountain View; the
doctors on their city call schedule receive a flat fee. Id.Examining the doctors’ duties under both systems, there is only one way a
clinic doctor with admitting privileges at the private hospital would assume
responsibility for Ms. Cummings’s care outside the scope of his regular, federal
employment. The clinic doctor would have to: (1) be working on the city call
schedule and, (2) admit a patient without a primary care provider. Neither
occurred here. On January 28, 2008, when Ms. Cummings was admitted, no
clinic doctor was staffing the emergency room for the private hospital. Id. at 669.
The doctor in charge of the emergency department that night did call one of the
-7-
defendant doctors for advice, but the defendant doctor was contacted not as an
occasional contractor at the private hospital but as Ms. Cummings’s clinic
physician. I Aplt. App. 429, 435. Accordingly, Ms. Cummings had a primary
care doctor when she was admitted to the private hospital. 2 She had been treated
at the federal clinic for several years, prompting another doctor to call a clinic
physician about her care. Because she was a patient, the clinic required a clinic
doctor oversee her treatment at the private hospital. II Aplt. App. 668. Any
doubts are dispelled by looking at who paid the clinic doctors for Ms.
Cummings’s care. The federal clinic issued checks to the defendant doctors
specifically for Ms. Cummings’s treatment at the private hospital. Id. at 675–79.
On appeal, the estate argues that the clinic doctors were not contractually
required to provide care at local hospitals, because that requirement is contained
in a signed job description and those descriptions are separate from the
employment contract. Therefore, the estate claims, Ms. Cummings’s admission
and treatment must have been under the auspices of the agreement with Mountain
View. Aplt. Br. at 19. Contracts can, however, validly include provisions of a
document not physically part of the contract itself, including a document that is
not itself a contract. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 402. The contracts here refer
2
On appeal, the estate argues that having been a patient in the past does
not make Ms. Cummings a clinic patient “for the rest of her life.” Aplt. Br. at 19.
The estate never contends Ms. Cummings terminated her care at the clinic or
sought a new provider. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt Ms. Cummings was
a clinic patient at the time of her death.
-8-
explicitly to these job descriptions (“[s]ervices shall be provided as described in
the official description of the position,” see, e.g., II Aplt. App. 605),
incorporating these descriptions by reference into the contract, see Holmes v.
Colo. Coal. for Homeless Long Term Disability Plan, 762 F.3d 1195, 1210 n.13
(10th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1402 (2015). Therefore, we must reject
the estate’s argument to disregard them.
B. The estate failed to comply with FTCA requirements
When Congress enacted the FTCA in 1946, it permitted individuals to sue
the government for “personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful
act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope
of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). This waiver of the federal
government’s immunity, however, is narrowly construed. Lehman v. Nakshian,
453 U.S. 156, 161 (1981) (“[T]his Court has long decided that limitations and
conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued must be strictly
observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied.” (quoting Soriano v.
United States, 352 U.S. 270, 276 (1957))). That forces plaintiffs, like the estate,
to adhere closely to every rule and requirement of the FTCA, including the
condition to exhaust their administrative remedies before appearing in federal
court. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) (requiring claimants to “first present[] the claim to the
appropriate Federal agency”) (emphasis added). This notice requirement is
“jurisdictional and cannot be waived.” Bradley v. United States ex rel. Veterans
-9-
Admin., 951 F.2d 268, 270 (10th Cir. 1991).
After receiving the government’s second motion to dismiss, the district
court held sua sponte that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the estate
did not comply with the FTCA requirement to present the claim to the appropriate
federal agency before filing suit. The plaintiff estate does not dispute the timing:
the estate sued in state court and then notified a federal agency, and after that, the
government removed the suit to federal court. On appeal, the estate argues the
suit’s removal to federal court satisfies the timing requirements, and if not, the
court should use its equitable powers to waive the order of the administrative
filing. Neither argument persuades us to deviate from the narrow limitations
prescribed by the FTCA.
The estate argues first that the suit’s removal to federal court should
constitute a new filing, thus satisfying the exhaustion requirement. Federal
jurisdiction depends on facts as they exist when the initial complaint is filed.
Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 830 (1989). As the
district court noted, our decision in Duplan v. Harper, 188 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir.
1999), considered a similar situation—a suit was filed in state court and then
notice of the claim was filed to the appropriate federal agency—and affirmed the
general rule that new filings in an existing suit cannot correct the failure to
exhaust administrative requirements. Id. at 1199 (“Allowing claimants . . . to
cure the jurisdictional defect by filing an amended complaint would render the
- 10 -
exhaustion requirement meaningless and impose an unnecessary burden on the
judicial system.”). We did endorse a narrow exception to this rule. The federal
action can suffice as a new action if the court administratively closed the case, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and the government agrees to treat it as a
new action. Id. at 1200. None of these things happened here. The estate did not
attempt to file an amended complaint, choosing instead to rely on the
government’s removal to federal court. As our precedent demonstrates, this is
clearly not enough.
The estate then essentially argues for equitable estoppel, asking us to waive
the administrative exhaustion requirement. Aplt. Br. at 15–16. We have held the
requirement to exhaust is jurisdictional, see Bradley, 951 F.2d at 270, and
jurisdictional requirements cannot be waived. See United States v. Kwai Fun
Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625, 1631 (2015) (noting that when a requirement is
jurisdictional, “a litigant’s failure to comply . . . deprives a court of all authority
to hear a case”). The estate relies on recent precedent to question whether
administrative exhaustion is still considered jurisdictional. Aplt. Br. at 15 (citing
Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2015)). This precedent,
however, discusses whether the time to file in federal court after administrative
exhaustion is jurisdictional, not whether administrative exhaustion itself is
jurisdictional. Barnes, 776 F.3d at 1139–40 (“We start by observing that the
FTCA has both an administrative-exhaustion requirement . . . and a statute of
- 11 -
limitations” and “we ask whether . . . [the] statute of limitations may operate to
bar an FTCA claim.”) (emphasis added). Finding no support for the argument
that this exhaustion is not jurisdictional, we cannot overlook the requirement.
C. The district court lacked jurisdiction over the supplemental claims
The estate’s final argument on appeal concerns Mountain View, the other
defendant. The district court awarded summary judgment to the private hospital
in part based upon a failure of proof related to the expert disclosure deadline. It
is uncontested that the district was exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Apart
from the merits, the estate correctly argues that if the district court’s dismissal of
the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, the prior rulings on the
supplemental claims must be extinguished. Aplt. Br. at 27.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that can only entertain
certain claims. When a case is properly in federal court, however, the district
court has supplemental jurisdiction over any claims that are “so related” to the
jurisdiction-invoking claim “that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). If a district court dismisses the federal
claims on the merits, it can as a matter of discretion exercise supplemental
jurisdiction. But when a district court dismisses the federal claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, it lacks such discretion and must dismiss the
supplemental claims without prejudice. See Estate of Harshman v. Jackson Hole
Mountain Resort Corp., 379 F.3d 1161, 1167 (10th Cir. 2004); Scott v. Pasadena
- 12 -
Unified Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 646, 664 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 16 Moore’s
Federal Practice Civil § 106.66 (collecting cases). Though Mountain View argues
that the estate has waived this issue for failure to cite authority or develop its
argument, supplemental jurisdiction is incompatible with a Rule 12(b)(1)
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed.
Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1255 (6th Cir. 1996).
The dismissal of the federal claims is AFFIRMED. The district court’s
rulings on the supplemental claims against Mountain View are VACATED with
instructions to the district court to remand to New Mexico state court.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
- 13 -