DODD

v.

UNITED STATES

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9), along with Plaintiff Jerrod Dodd’s Response (Doc. 13). For the below reasons, the Court denies the Government’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury case. In August 2019, Dodd was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a postal vehicle, and he allegedly sustained serious bodily injuries. (Doc. 1 at 3). Dodd claims the postal vehicle was being driven negligently at the time of the accident. (Doc. 1 at 3).

“medical records and itemized bills for treatment received” in connection with his claim. (Doc. 9 Ex. B, Ex. C). Dodd did not supply the requested documents. (Doc. 9 at 1). The Government formally denied Dodd’s claim in September 2021. (Doc. 9 Ex. D).

Dodd sued the Government seeking monetary damages and other relief for his injuries arising from the August 2019 motor vehicle accident. (Doc. 1 at 4). The Government moves to dismiss this suit, alleging this Court does not have jurisdiction because Dodd did not provide the medical documentation the

Government requested, and therefore did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) before filing this suit.

DISCUSSION

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that only possess the power to hear those cases which they are authorized to under statute and the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “[A] federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction . . . whenever it may be lacking” and should do so “at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F. 3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). It is the burden of the party asserting jurisdiction to establish “by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the existence of federal jurisdiction.” Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Osting-Schwinn, 613 F. 3d

1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2010). The United States is “immune from suit unless it waives immunity and consents to be sued.” Collins v. United States, 996 F. 3d 102, 108-109 (2d Cir. 2021). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is one instance in which the

United States has waived its immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 2674 (“The United States shall be liable, respecting the provisions of this title relating to tort claims, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances”).

Dodd asserts this Court has jurisdiction under the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. The FTCA requires that before suing the United States “for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government,” a claimant must “have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). A claimant whose claim: “(1) gives the agency written notice of his or her claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and (2) places a value on his or her claim” has met the presentment requirement of the FTCA. Adams v. United States, 615 F. 2d 284, 289-90 (5th Cir. 1980).3 39 C.F.R. § 912.8—a federal regulation specific to claims against the United States Postal Service—additionally requires claimants to “submit substantial evidence to prove the extent of any losses incurred and any injury sustained.” Neither party has addressed whether the requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 2675 are still considered jurisdictional given the Supreme Court’s decision in

Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006).4 But the Court need not reach this issue because the Government’s motion to dismiss fails whether or not 28 U.S.C. § 2675’s requirements are jurisdictional.

A claimant may refuse to comply with 39 C.F.R. § 912.8, requests from the agency for additional documentation, and the fine print in the SF-95 that directs claimants to “substantiate” a claim with “competent evidence”—all without sacrificing the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See Adams, 615 F. 2d at 291 (“An agency’s demand for anything more than a written and signed statement setting out the manner in which the injury was received, enough details to enable the agency to begin its own investigation and a claim for money damages is unwarranted and unauthorized”); Collins v. United States,

996 F. 3d 102, 111 (2d Cir. 2021) (explaining that the SF-95 was “promulgated by the Attorney General not on the basis of any authority conferred in § 2675 to prescribe requirements for presentment but, rather, on the basis of § 2672’s authority to establish regulations facilitating settlement”).

A claimant’s refusal to provide supplemental documentation of an incident or injury will not deprive a federal court of jurisdiction if the claim: “(1) gives the agency written notice of [the] claim sufficient to enable the agency to investigate and (2) places a value on [the] claim.” Adams, 615 F. 2d at 289-

90.5 The Government equates Dodd’s claim to the inadequate claim made by

But the Court finds Cupp v. United States, No. CV 215-005, 2013 WL 4084641 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 13, 2013) to be far more persuasive. In Cupp¸ Defendant argued—as the Government does here—that the claimant failed to comply with the FTCA’s requirements by “refusing to provide evidence to substantiate their claim” even after a request from the relevant agency for “medical treatment and billing records.” Id. at *1, *5. Citing Tidd and Adams, the court held that because the claimant had “provided the time, place, and nature of the accident, as well as the type of injury suffered,” the claimant had met the

Dodd’s failure to provide medical bills. However, the provision of medical bills is not required. See Tidd v. United States, 786 F. 2d 1565, 1569 (11th Cir. 1986) (stating that failure to provide “copies of medical bills . . . does not act as a jurisdictional bar to a[n] FTCA suit under § 2675”). presentment requirement under the FTCA. Jd. at *5. The court specifically noted that “this Court’s jurisdiction is not affected by Plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with additional requests for information.” Id. at *5 (emphasis added). Because Dodd’s claim satisfies the FTCA’s requirements, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendant United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Doc. 9) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on December 13, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record