Published by Arfaa Law Group
Medical malpractice claims involving multiple providers can quickly become procedurally complex, particularly when federal employees are involved. In such cases, questions of immunity, jurisdiction, and pre-suit requirements may determine whether a claim proceeds at all, regardless of its underlying merits. A recent Maryland decision illustrates how the intersection of the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Westfall Act can significantly alter the course of litigation and even bar claims entirely. If you are pursuing a medical malpractice claim in Maryland, it is essential to consult with a Baltimore medical malpractice attorney who understands how to navigate these procedural barriers and preserve your right to recovery.
Case Setting
Allegedly, the decedent, a 90-year-old patient, was admitted to a hospital with respiratory illness and remained under the care of multiple healthcare providers before dying approximately two weeks later.
It is alleged that during her hospitalization, the decedent received negligent medical care in several respects, including failure to screen for infection properly, failure to recognize aspiration risks, improper management of a feeding tube, misuse of medications, failure to follow advance directives, and inadequate monitoring following transfer to a lower level of care.
Reportedly, the plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice action in state court against numerous defendants, including individual healthcare providers and hospital entities, seeking damages for wrongful death and related injuries.
It is reported that one of the named defendants was a physician serving as an active-duty member of the United States military who was participating in a clinical training program at the hospital. The United States certified that this provider was acting within the scope of her federal employment at the time of the alleged malpractice and moved to substitute itself as the defendant under the Westfall Act.
Reportedly, after substitution, the United States moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiffs opposed the motion and sought to challenge the certification, contending that the provider acted outside the scope of her federal employment. The plaintiffs also sought leave to amend their complaint.
Medical Malpractice Claims Involving the Federal Government
The court first addressed whether the certification under the Westfall Act was proper. It explained that when the government certifies that a federal employee acted within the scope of employment, the United States is substituted as the defendant. The plaintiff’s exclusive remedy lies under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Applying Maryland law governing the scope of employment, the court analyzed whether the provider’s actions were in furtherance of her employer’s business and whether they were authorized. The court determined that the provider’s conduct, which consisted entirely of delivering clinical care to a patient during her fellowship training, fell squarely within the type of work she was employed to perform.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that inadequate supervision or deviation from training protocols placed the provider outside the scope of employment. It emphasized that even if the provider acted in an unauthorized manner, such conduct remained incidental to her authorized duties. The court also found no evidence that the provider acted for personal reasons or outside the temporal and spatial boundaries of her employment.
Having concluded that the United States was the proper defendant, the court turned to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. It explained that the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity but requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. This requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived.
Because the plaintiffs did not present an administrative claim to the appropriate federal agency within the required time period, the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims against the United States. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice.
The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint, finding that the amendment would be futile because it would not alter the scope-of-employment analysis or cure the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and remanded them to the state court.
Consult with a Skilled Baltimore Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical malpractice claims involving federal providers require careful attention to jurisdictional requirements and procedural rules. The skilled Baltimore medical malpractice attorneys of Arfaa Law Group understand how to navigate these complexities, and if you hire us, we will pursue any compensation you may be owed. You can reach us at (410) 889-1850 or through our online form to set up a conference.