FTCA Sum: Kim v. U.S.
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog discusses Maryland medical malpractice cases. In this post, I examine a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Specifically, the issue was the plaintiff’s failure to include a request for a sum certain in the FTCA administrative claim. The case is Kim v. United States, No. 8:23-cv-00991-PX (May 23, 2024).
Factual Background
The plaintiffs brought a highly intricate medical malpractice case on behalf of their young child, involving a delicate surgery to correct a congenital malformation at a U.S. military hospital that unfortunately resulted in severe complications. (M.O. at 1-2).
The plaintiffs brought their claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a federal law that specifically allows private parties to sue the United States in a federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the United States. Firstly, they submitted it to the federal agency. The FTCA law requires that the claim state the ‘sum certain’ that the claimant seeks. The federal agency plays a crucial role in this process, as it is responsible for reviewing the claim and determining whether to pay it at the administrative level.
The plaintiffs submitted the form SF-95. The plaintiffs also included an addendum B, which stated, “all told, plaintiffs seek damages, including conscious pain and suffering, and past and future and related health care expenses in the amount of Twenty Million Dollars ($20,000,000.00).” (Id. at 3).
In the section entitled amount of claim, one parent and child specifically stated $20,000,000 for personal injury and total damages. However, the other parent had 0.00 in both places. (Id. at 3-4).
Afterward, the federal agency did not respond, and the plaintiffs filed suit. The U.S. then moved to dismiss the FTCA claim for failure to identify a sum certain of damages. (Id. at 4).
U.S. District Court
The court found that by entering zero, one parent failed to state a sum certain for damages. The parent argued that addendum B should satisfy the obligation. The court, however, noted that the plaintiffs submitted the addendum for the section on the nature and extent of the injury. Moreover, the reference to seeking damages specifies “plaintiffs,” not this parent. Addendum B does not tell the federal agency the particular damages for that parent. (Id. at 6-7).
As a result, that parent’s failure to present a sum certain to the federal agency before the suit deprives the court of jurisdiction over his FTCA claim. The court dismissed the claim without prejudice. (Id. at 7).
Commentary by the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer on the FTCA Sum Certain Requirement
The court’s reasoning aligns with the role of the sum certain requirement. This element allows the federal agency to determine whether to pay the claim at the administrative level. Understanding the significance of legal procedures like this enhances the audience’s comprehension of the case.
The court opinion did not reveal why the one plaintiff put a zero on the form. Is it possible they were trying to specify that they were seeking $20 million total, not $20 million each? In any event, this opinion shows the care plaintiffs must take when filling out this form.
The practical effect of the court’s decision is not known. The dismissal is without prejudice, allowing the parent to refile if they can satisfy the administrative requirements within the statute of limitations. This potential for refiling, even if the statute of limitations is unclear, provides a ray of hope in an otherwise complex legal process.
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.