Kirchhoff, M.D. v. United States Government et al, No. 7:2018cv00489 - Document 41 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 4/29/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFFICE U.S.DIST.COURT AT RA OKEIVA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTRICT O F V IRG W IA ROAN OKE DIV ISION AFR 3 C 22!S' JULIA DUDLEY LERK BY: U R GARY KIRCHHOFF,M .D., Plaintiff, CivilActionNo.7:18C7 00489 I M EM ORANDUM OPINION ! UNITED STATES GOVERNM ENT,etal., By:Hon.GlenE.Conyd SeniorUnited StatesDlstrictJudge Defendants. Gary Kirchhoff,M .D .,proceeding pro K,filed thisaction againstiheUnited States,the i . ! DepartmentoftheArmy,W alterReed NationalMilitary M edicalCenterCW alterReed''),Ret. Col.PaulM ongan,M .D.(ColonelMpnganandcollectively,theçsfederaldefendants'),W illinm S. 1 - Arimony,Esq.,and the Law Offices of W illinm S.Arimony (collectively, the EtArimony defendants'). Thecaseispresentlybeforethecourtonthedefendants'motionstodismiss. For I thereaspnssetforth below,the courtwillgransthedefendants'motions. . 1 il B ackqround i I - 1 Thefollowingfactualallegations,taken from theplaintiff'scomplaipt ',are accepted astrue forpurposesofthependingmotionstodismiss. SeeEdcksonv.Pardus,551U.S.89,924(2007) ; (tç(W qhennzlingonadefendant'smotiontodismiss,ajudgemustacceptajitruea11ofthefactual i allegationscontained in thecomplaint,,). : . ' Kirchhoff, M.D. v. United States Government et al Doc. 41 Dr.Kirchhoffisan anesthesiologistand form erArm y oftk er. èompl.!! 8,18,21,Dl tt. l i No. He began working atW alter Reed in 2007. Id.! 13. C olqnel 1 ! M ongan w as his I I commandingofficer. IZ !! 14,24. ; Dockets.Justia.com Dr.Itirchhoffdidnothavea' positiveexpedenceworking atW alterReed. Heallegesthat 1 otherofscers,including ColonelM ongan,werejealousofhim becauseheh2 1adaprivateairplane 1 ! andneverworeatmiform. J.és!23. Dr.U rcllhofffurtherallegesthatt'thçpracticeofmedicine ' i atW alterReed wasarchaic,antiquated,and substandard,''and thatitsmediéalresidencyprogrnm 1; Produced çsincompetently trained doctors.'' JZ ! 25. Dr.s Kirchhoffsharèd hisconcernswith i otherofficers,including(meofColonelM ongan'sfriends. Ld=. ! InMayof2008,théArmyabruptlysuspendedDr.Kirchhoffsmldicalprivileges. JJS .. ! , :27. Dr.KirchhoffmaintainsthatthesuspensionwasbasedonfalseallegationsmadebyColonel l M ongan. J#.a!29. TheArmy didnotaffordDr.Kirchhofftheopporblnlty toparticipateinany l I discussionsregarding thesuspension orprovide Mm with any otheroptions. Ld=.! 28. A few I monthslater,ColonelM onganretired9om theArmy andmovedtoFloridal JZ !30. . . l . ' OnJanuary7,2009,theAnnyrevokedDr.Kirchhoffsclinicalprivii leges. J.Z !40. The decision was purportedly çsbased on çfailure to docum entpre-anesthetic evaluations,failure to exercise sound professionaljudgment in selecting anesthetic agents, l1mnecessary delaying ! emergency surgery, unprofessional handling of supervisory responsibilities for resident physicians, and disregard of patient concerns.''' J.Z permanentlyrevokedonJune3,2009. J#-, i Dr. K-irclllpffs privileges were : l. :1 1 - Thatsame m onth,Dr.Kirchhoff contacted the Law Offices ofW I illiam S.Atim ony in Alexandria,Virginia. ld.! 32. Dr.KirchhoffsubsequentlytEsigned acohtractwith (Arimony) * ' 1 andpaidhim $50,000forrepresentationtotryandgainbackhismedical. E Jprivileges.-,Ig.,or. ' p . 1 ( KircllhofftoldArim onythatçthefelthewasbeing retaliatedagainstby theAr 'my andCol.M ongan becausetheywerejealousofhim andbecausehehadreportedthatmedicaltù I rairlingatW alterReed wassubst>ndard.'' J.4=.!33. Arimonyadvisedtheplaintiffthattheonlyrayhecouldregainhis I m edicalprivilegeswasto;lean appealofthedecision through theAnny B/ardforCorrection of l . Military RecordsItSABCMR''). li !39. ArimonyalsoindicatedthatDr.l Kirchhoffiçneededto 1 - I acquirelettersbyprominentphysicianstosupporthisclaim thathepracticeb ' theproperstandard : ofcare with regard to the allegations againsthim.'' J.la! 43. Dr.Kiri!hhoffdid as he was - I 1 - instructed. Id.!!44-47. Ki ! Qn Febnzary 6,2011,Arim ony filed an application with the ABCM R on behalfofDr. l rchhoff. J. ya.! 50. The application was denied in Octoberof2011.1!Dr.Kirchhoffasked Arimonytotslealawsuitonmultipleoccasions. JZ !51. InOctoberof2Q11,Arimonyadvised th ! eplaintiffthatçlhedidn'thaveabasisforsuing''theArm y mld thatçta laFs IuitagainsttheArm y wouldcosttoomuch.'' J#.! 52. Consequensly,Dr.Kirchhoff'lfired''Arimonyin2011. Ld..!! ! 16,54.Thatsameyear,theArmyinvoluntmilydischargedDr.Kirchhoff.JJ.IJ.!57.Hisefforts I to5ndanotherlawyertorepresentllim provedunsuccessful. J#-.!54. ' l From 2009to 2013,Dr.Kirchhoffwastmableto work asan anesthesiologist. JZ !59.* ' j , Consequently,hetihad no incomeand wasforced to draw SocialSectlrityl'' JZ Dr.Kirchhoff . estimatesthathelostover$2,000,000 in incom easaresultofthesuspensioé andrevocation ofhis I l medicalprivileges. 1d.!63. j ! ProceduralH istorv ! D 1 - r.Kirchhoffsled theinstgntaction on October 9,2018,alleging thatthedefendants E Ii conspired to revokehismedicalprivilegesand preventlzim 9om acquiring gainfulem ploym ent. i I : ln Cotm t1hispro K com plaint,Dr.Kirchhoffclaim sthatthedefendantsviolated hisrightstmder . 1 theFirstAmendmentandtheW histleblowerProtection Actof1989 In l lcotmt I1,the plaintiff . claim sthatthedefendantsdeprived him ofincomeand assetswithoutdueprocess,in violation of 1The plaintiffhassubmitted a copy ofaletter9om theABCM R informing him thathisapplication was deniedandthattheBoard'sdecisioninhiscasewasfinal. SeeOctober14,201lLt.,D2.No.37-1. theFift hAmendment.InCount111,labeledGt MisrepresentationandConceal ! ' menty ''Dr.Ioirchhoff . asserts that the defendants conspired to revoke his m çdical privilegej, provide h1m with i l ltineffectiveassistance ofcounsely''çGdrag hism atteroutfortwo yearsy''and Ssfailto file alawsuit : that:(theconductof (withinjthestatuteoflimitations.'' Compl.!98;seealsoid.! 103(alleging : the defendants constitutes conspiracy to engage in m alpractice and miIsrepresent Dr. Gary I Kirchhoffand cause him emotionaldistressn). In CountIV,Dr.Kirchhoffasserts a claim for intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistressbasedon thedefendants'purpoqed plan torevokehis I medicalprivilegesand deprivehim ofincome and assets. ' I i ThedefendantshavemovedtodismissthecomplaintunderRules12 (b)(1),12(b)(5),and ; 12(b)(6)ofthe FederalRules of CivilProcedtlre The defendants'm oti ions have been fully . I briefed and areripeforreview .z Standards ofR eview i Rule12(b)(1)pftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurepermitsapartyj 'tomovefordismissal l ofanactionforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. Theplaintiffbearstheàtlrdenofprovingthat ! subjectmagerjurisdictionexists. Evansv.B.F.PerldnsCo.,166F.3d 642,647(4th Cir.1999). ' Di 1 - smissalforlackofsubjectmatterjudsdiction isappropriateEtifthematefialjmisdictionalfacts arenotin dispute' andthemovingpartyisentitledtoprevailasaniatterpflaw.'' Id.(intemal I citationandquotationmarksomitted). In decidingamotiontodismissforllackofsubjectmatter jurisdiction,thecourtmayGtregardthepleadingsasmereevidpnceontheis1 jue,andmayconsider ' j evidenceoutsidethepleadingswithoutconvertingtheproceedingtoonefor ! 1summaryjudgment.'' ! Id. . Rule12(b)(6)permitsapartytomovefordismissalofacomplair1 ! ' tforfailtlretostatea . claim upon which reliefcan be granted. W hen deciding a motion to dism ' issunderthisnzle,the 2The courthasdeterm inedthatoralargum entwould notaid thedecisionalprp I ocess. 4 courtmustacceptastrueal1well-pleadedallegationsanddraw a1lreasonablçfacmalinferencesin ! theplaintiffsfavor. Erickson,551U.S.at94. çlWltileacomplaintattackl db#aRule12(b)(6) 11 1 ! m otion to dismissdoesnotneed detailedfact'ualallegations,aplaintiY sobhgation toprovidethe grotmdsofhisentitlementto reliefrequiresmorethan labelsand conclustons,and a fonnulaic recitation oftheelementsofacauseofactionwillnotdo.'' BellAtl.Com .v.Twom blv,550 U.S. 544,555 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). To àurvive dismissal,ç1a : complaintmustcontain suffcientfactualm atter,acceptedastrue,to fstatea' claim forreliefthatis plausibleon itsface-''' Ashcroftv.Inbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotinjTwomblv,550U.S' . I at570). D iscussion 1. C laim s A zainstthe FederalD efendants ' I Thefederaldefbndéntshavemovedtodismisstheclaimsagainstthèrilforlack ofsubjed i 2 matterjurisdiction. Thefederaldefendantsalsoarguethatalloftheplaintlffsclaimsarebarred by the applicablestatutesoflimitationsorothem ise subjectto dismissalilmderRule 12(b)(6). ! ' Forthefollowingreasons,thecourtwillg' rantthefederaltlefendants'motio'n. Subied M atterJurisdiction Th8federaldefendantsGrstarguethatthecourtlackssubjectmattefjllrisdictionpttrsùant to the military abstention doctrineestablished in Feresv.United States,)40 U.S.135 (1950). l i ççoriginally,FeresstoodforthepropositionthattheGovernmentisnotlilbleundertheFederal i TprtClaimsActCTTCA'')forçinjuriestoservicemenwheretheinjuriesaroseoutoforareinthe 1 cotlrse ofactivity incidentto service.''' Aikensv.Ingrnm,811 F.3d 64/,648 (4th Cir.2016) ( quotingFeres,340.U' .S.t146j.TheSuprémeCourthassinceG:éxtendedl i theFeresGincidèil tto service'testtocausesofactionoutsideth l eFTCA realm ,including claim sagainstfederaloflicials l pursuantto Bivensv.Six UnknownN nmed AgentsofFederalBureau ofN arlcotics,403 U.S.388 k ' (1971).'9 J.Z (citationsomitted). Likewise,the United StatesCourtofAp'pealsfortheFourth i 1 1 Circuithasjoined itssistercircuitsin extending the Feresdoctrine to actipnsunder42 U.S.C. j1983.3 Id.at649. : I To detennine the applicability ofthe Feresdoctrine,courtsask whdhertheinjuriesof which the plaintiff complainsStsarlose)outofor gweqre in the cotlrse of ' :activity incidentto service.''' Id.at650 (alterationsin original)(quoting Feres,340 U.S.atI146). The Supreme ' C ourthasdeclined to adoptany bright-line rulesregarding whattype of cjonductis considered : ççincidenttoservice.'' SeeUnitedStatesv.Shearer,473U.S.52,57(1985)1(çsTheFeresdoctrine ; cnnnotbereducedtoafew bright-linenlles....'' ). Instead,courtsconsiddIçtwhetherSparticular ' Suitswoulbcallintoquestionmilitarydisciplineanddecisionmakingland4ould)requirejudiciàl ! inquiryinto,andhenceintrusion upon,militarym atters.''' Ciocav.Rum sfeld,720 F.3d 505,510 ! (4th Cir.2013)(quoting Stanley,483U.S.at682). çlln otherwords,wheye acomplaintasserts ' j injtlriesthatstem from therelationsMp between theplaintiffand theplaintiffsservice in the ' I military,thetincidenttoservice'testisimplicated-'' Aikens,811F.3dat651(additionalinternal i quotationmarksomitted). J TheFourthCircuithasrecognizedthatthescopeoftheFeresdoctriheisextremelybroad. ' ; Siejp.a(sçFereshasgrownsdbroadthatthiscourtoncenoted,çtheSupremeCo :urthasembarkedon . a colzrse dedicated to broadening the Feres doctrineto encompass,ata ininimum,a11injuries ' J sufferedbymilitarypersormelthatareevenremotelyrelatedtotheindividuyl'sstatusAsamember ofthemilitary. '' )(emphasisomitted)(quotingStewartv.UnitedStates,90Fl.3d102,105(4thCir. 1996: Post-Feresdecisionsm ake clearthatt$aplaintiffneed notbe on dut iy''atthetime ofhis . 3Section 1983,which iscited in Countloftheplaintiff'scomplaint,Happlieslonlytostateactorsacting undercolorofstatelaw,nottofederalactors.'' Smithv.Donahoe,917F.Supp.2d562,j68(E.D.Va.2013)(citing Dowev.TotalActionAgainstPovertvinRoanokeValley,145F.3d653,658(4thCir.1998)). I injudes,thattheapplicationofthedoctrineçt doesnotdependonthemilitary1statusofthealleged offender,''and thatthe doctrine isnottlrestricted to acmalmilitary operatE ions.'' Id.(citations 2 - ! , omitted). Succinctly stated,çilqractically any suitthatimplicatesthemilisary sjudgmentsand ' , ù08I?.3d1220,1224 decisionsnmsthe risk ofcolliding with Feres.'' Pringle v.United States, l istates, (10thCir.2000)(emphasisandalterationsomitted)(quotingDreierv.United; 106F.3d844, 848(9th Ci r.1997:. ! ! Againstthisbackdrop,thecourthasno difficulty concludingthatDf KimllhoT salleged ,. injuriesaroseoutofactivi. tiesincidenttohisserviceinthemilitary. Dr.Kirèhhoffwasonltactive duty,''workingatamilitarymedicalcenter,whentheArmysuspendedandLltimatelyrevokedhis i medicalprivileges. Compl.!! 8,27,40. TakingtheplaintiY sallegatiob sastrue,theArmy I revoked hismedicalprivilegesbecause ColonelM ongan andotherofficersIwerejealousofMm andwantedtoretaliateagainsthim forcom plaining aboutthem edicalcarearidtrainingprovidedat 1 ! W alterReed. W hileDr.Kircv offtsm ay claim thatthisisan tegregious..1. infringement'ofhis - , rights,..,thereisno question thatthealleged infmingementoccurred incldentto (hisqmilitary l ! service.'' Aikens,811F.3d at651(quotingErwinChemerinsky,FederalJudsdiction622(5thed. , 2007))* Accordingly,thecourtconcludesthattheFeresdoctrineappliestoltheconstitutionaland , 11 tol4 claimsasserted againstthefederaldefendantsandthatsuch claimsafetherefore subjectto l dismissalforlack ofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.4 SeeOrtizv.United Statbs,786 F.3d 817 829 (10thCir.2015)(emphasizingthatGTeresisajurisdictionaldoctrine'). : : i I 4 Totheextentthattheplaintifpsclaimsagainstthefederaldefendantsim plicatetheFTCA,theplaintiff isalsounabletosatisfyhisburdenofestablishingsubjectmatterjurisdictionbecauslitisundisputedthatthe Plaintifffailedtofileanadministrativeclaim withtheappropriatefederalagency. jee28U.S.C.j2675(a); Ahmedv.UnitedStates,30F.3d514,516(4thCir.1994)CW ehavrobservedthatEtl' kbrequirementoffilingan administrativeclaim isjurisdictionalandmaynotbewaived.''')(quotingHenderson).UnitedStates,785F.2d 121,123(4thCir.1986:. B. StatutesofLim itations I The federal defendants also argue that a1l of the plaintiY s claim s are bnrred by the 1 -! applicable statutesoflimitations. Forthe followingreasons,thecourtagrees. Thus,even ifthe i ; Feresdoctrine is inapplicable to the plaintiffs cl aims,theyarenonethelesisubjecttodismissal : l underRule 1209(6). SeeJonesv.Bock,549 U.S.199,215 (2007)($$A cgmplaintissubjectto dismissalforfailure to state a claim ifthe allegations,taken as true,showI the plaintiff is not i by the applicable entitlèd to relief. If the allegations,for example,show thatreliefis barmd statuteoflimitations,thecomplaintissubjecttodismissalforfailtlretostatp1aclaim .-..''). 1 A. C onstitutionalClaim s ThestatuteoflimitationsforconstimtionalclaimstmderBiyensandI 'j 1983 isborrowed from theforum state'spersonalinjury statute. SeeW ilsonv.Garcia,471U. S.261,276(1985). 11 I Virginia has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury àctions. Va. Code : 1 I j 8.01-243(A). Accordingly,a plaintiffseeking to bring acivilrightsaction underBivensor ! j1983inVirginiamustdosowithintwoyearsafterthecauseofactionaccrues. ' 4 i Thequestion ofwhen a cause ofaction accnzestmderBivensorj 1983 is an issue of fedirallaw. Nasim v.W arden.Md.HouseofCorrt,64F i 3d951,955(4th Cir.1995)(en banc). . h I 'çunderfederallaw acauseofactionaccrueswhentheplaintiffpossessessuificientfactsaboutthe I . harm doneto him thatreasonable inquiry willreveallliscauseofaction.'r'l Id. Although $Gitis : criticalthattheplaintiffkngowqthathehasbeenhurtandwhoiniictedtheirljury,''Id.,theplaintiff . i l need notknow thyfullextentofhisinjuriesbeforethestamteoflimitatioùsbeginstozun. See l 1 , W * allacev.Keto,549 U.S.384,391(2007)($Thecause ofaction accmeseven thoughthe full ' extentoftheinjuryisnotthenknownorpfedictable.yy). . l f 8 In this case,Dr.Kircllhoffclaims thatthe federaldçfendants i 2vokedhismedical . PrivilegesinretaliationforexercisinghisrightslmdertheFirstAmendmentVd thathewasdenied 11 1 ! dueprocessin connection with therevocation ofhism edicalprivileges. Theplaintiffsm edical l privilegeswereperm anently revoked on Jtme3,2009. Theplaintiffbelieved atthattim ethatSthe , i . wasbeingretaliatedagainstbytheArmy andCol.M onganbecausetheywerejealousofhim and b 1 ,N ecausehehadreportedthatmedicaltrainingatW alterReedwassubstandard. Comp.!33;see also Ld-a!! 32-33 (alleging thathe shared thisinfoM ation with Arimoky in Jtme of2009). Nonetheless,Dr.Kirchhoffdid notfile the instantaction untilOctober of2018,m orethan nine . years 1ater.5 Consequently, thecourtconcludesthathisconstitutionalclaimsagainstthefederal I defendantsare untim ely . : I : l 1 The court further concludes that Dr. Kirchhoff fails to esiablish extraordinary 1 - circllm stances warranting equitable tolling of the statutory period. tdplaintiffs are entitled to i : equitabletolling only ifthey shpw thatthey haveptlrsuedtheirrightsdiligently and extraordinary i circllm stancesprevented them from fling on time.'' Raplee v.United Statis,842 F.3d 328,333 h : (4thCir.2016). TheFourthCircuithasexplainedthatequitabletollingisreservedfor t ose rare instanceà where -- due to circtlm stances external to the party,s own conduc l t - - it would be unconscionable to entbrie the limitation period againstthe party and g'ross injustice would l result.''' W hitesidev.UnitedStates,775F.3d 180,184(2014)(enbanc)(kuotingRousev.Lee, j 339 F 3d238,246(4th Cir.2003)(enbancll. 1 1 D i l ' j . r.Kirchhoffappearsto afgue thatthe delay in Eling the instantaètion isattributableto l J i , negligenceon thepartofArimony. See.e.g.,Compl.!51(tGplaintiffhadI kbeen tellingAttorney I 5 The courtalso notes thatthe plaintiff's own exhibits indicate that,more than six years before the instantactionwasfiled,theplaintiffbegancomplainingtoelectedoftlcialsthattheAV Vyhadretaliatedagainst him Ettocover-upthepoorqualityofmedicalcareprovidedbytheArmyphysicians,''Zdthathehadbeendenied dueprocessin connection with therevocation ofhismedicalprivileges. See.J.a..July 9,2012 Ltr.to Congressm an RobertHurt,Dkt.N o.37-7. 9 Arim onymultipletim estofilealawsuit. However,heandhis1aw firm continually madeexcuses I andkeptdraggingthematteron.'');J#=!53(stAttorneyAdmonyandhis1aw tlrm werenegligentin l J their representation of Dr. Kirchhoff and engaged in legal m alpractice However, Etattorney Gnegligence,even grossnegligence,'doesnotqualify asan extraor dinary circum stance 1 ' forpurposesofequitabletolling.'' Cromartiev.Ala.StateUniv.,693 F.App'x 852,853 (11th ' ! - Cir.2017)(quoting Cadetv.Fla.Dep'tofCorr.,853F.3d 1216,1227(llthl Cir.2017:;seealso .1 1 :q u Gaylev.UnitedParcelServ..Inc.,401F.3d222,22* 227(4thCir.2005)(hloldingthat a omey 8 negligence --including allowing a client's case to fallthrough the crack;s --is (not) ç I .an uq extraordinarycircllmstance'''justifyingequitabletolling). NordoesignorN ceofthelaw, even I whenapartydoesnothavelegalrepresentation.'' 0t4v.Md.Dep'tofPub.jafety& Corr.Servs., j I . 909F.3d655,661(4thCir.2018). Forthesereasons,thecourtconçludesthatitisclearfrom theplaintii rscomplaintthathis I constim tionalclaimsagainstthe federaldefendantsare tim e-barred. Accotdingly,theclaim sare alsosubjecttodismissaltmderRule 12(b)(6). B. TortClaim s i Ii . ! çç-f'heFTCA isthe exclusiverem edy fortortscomm itted by a governme i ntemployeeinthe ' j scopeofhisemployment.'' Goodwvn v.Simons,90F.App'x 680,681(4th Cir.2004)(citing l United Statesv.Smith,499 U.S.160(1991:;seealsoW illouchbvv.UniteI d.States,730F.3d476 1 ! d ' (5th Cir.2013)(ç1ETheFTCA)istheexclusiveremedy forsuitsagainstth1e Uited Statesorits . I agencies sotmding in tort.''l(citing 28 U.S.C.j 2679(a)). The FTCA'! statute oflimitation ' . p r o v i d e s t h a t a t o r t c l g i m d t s h a l l b e f o r e v e r b a r r e d ' l l n l e s s i t i s p r e s e n t e d S s k q j i t h i n t w o y e a r s a f t e r suchclaiinaccrues.'' 18U.S.C.j2401($. Asageneralrule,aclaim accrù 'esGçwhentheplaintiff - - 1 I knowsboththeexistenceand thecauseofhisinjury.'' United Statesv.Kubrick,444 U.S.111, 113(1979). ? , 1 , I Itisclearfrom thecomplaintthatthetortclaimsasserted againstthefpderaldefendantsare 1 . barredbythestamteoflimitations. EachofDr.ltirclzhoffsclaimsisbaseJontherevocationof hism edicalprivilegesand the actsorom issionsofhisattom ey. SeeComp.1l.!98 (allegingthat : L thedefendantsconspiredtorevokehismedicalprivileges,providehim withSqneffectiveassistance 1/ ofcotmsels''Gsdraghismatteroutfoitwoyears,''andSçfailto 5lealawsuit(within)thestatuteof limitations');Id.! 103 (alleging thatGçthe conductofthe defendantsconltitutes conspiracy to 1 ,, engageinmalpracticeandmisrepresentDr.GaryKircllhoffandcausehim kemotionaldistress ); Id.! 107 (alleging thatthe plaintiffsuffered emotionaldistressas a resultofthe defendants' J ' ltdeviousplan to revoki ghisqmedicalprivilegesto depdvellim ofhisincome andassets'). As i I . indicated above,Dr.Kirchhoffsm edicalprivilegeswere pennanently revö,ked in June of2009, I andheççfired''Admony in 2011,aftertheattorney declined to filealawsuiton hisbehalf. Compl. i !! 52,54.'Thus,the statute oflimitationsapplicable to the tortclaini againstthefederal i defendantshaslongexpiredandsuchclaimsaresubjecttodismissaltmderkul I e12(b)(6)6 . 11 W histleblow erClaim 1 .1 . d l Dr. Kirchhoff also claim s that the federal efendants violatect the S tW histleblower Protection Actof1989.'' Compl.! 84: However,thatActdoesnotapply to active orreserve - tmif ! ormedservices. See5U.S.C.jj2105& 2302;seealsoVerbeckv.Udited States89Fed.Cl. 1 2 47 , l 61 (Fed.C1.2009) (explaining thatthe W histleblowerProtection Ad ' / appliesto Sçcivilian l . - employeesofthe federalgovernmenf). Assuming thatDr.Kircllhoffin 'tended to invokethe MilitaryWhistleblowerProtectionActof1988(çG MWPA'' ),10U.S.C.j101 $ i 34,heçt faresriobetter 6ThecourtalsonotesthattheUnitedStatesistheonlyprogerdefendantinan?TCA action. SeeWebb v.Hamidullah,281F.App'x 159,161n.4 (4th Cir.2008)(citlng 28U.S.C.j2ù74);seealso28U.S.C. j2679(b)(1). becausethe stam te doesnottprovide any private cause oraction,expressorimplied.-', - j J--ksonv.spe-cer-3l?,..supp.3d3o2,3os(o.o.c.aolgltquotingacqzstov.ustedsotes, 1 70F.3d 1010,1011(8thCir.1995:;seealsoMackallv.United StatesDè 'p'tofDefense,No. :1 ! 1;17-cv-00774,2017U.S.Dist.LEXIS191213,at*14(D.Md.Nov.20,2917)ClllheMWPA onlyprovidesforadm inistm tiverem edies;itdoesnotprovideaprivatecause,E bfaction.'')(citations omitted). Accordingly,Dr.Kirchhoffswhistleblowerretaliation claimsmtkstbedismissed. D. R equestfor R eview of the R evocation ofM edicalPrivileeès and Involuntarv D ischaree ' Although Dr.KirchhoY s complaintdoesnotspecifically cite ty the Administrative ProceduresAct(1$APA''),5 U.S.C.j 701#.1seu.,the federaldefendants t1iberally construe the complaintas requesting review ofthe adverse decisions made by the Alp y and the ABCM R. .l UndertheAPA,the courtSimay setaside an agency'sactions ordecisions' ifthey are Garbitrary, i capricious,an abuseofdiscretion'orGcontraryto constimtionalright''' Rôlandv.United States 7 I Citizenship & Immigration Servs.,850 F.3d 625,629 n.3 (4th Cir.2017 .) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 1 j 706(2)(A)-(B)). APA claims are subject to the six-year stamte ofl 'limitations generally - 1 , applicable yo claims againstthe government. Id.;see also 28 U.S.C.j 2401(a). tçconduct becom esreviewableundertheAPA upon snalace ncv action. in otherwordiI,whentheagencyhas *-''' ' >' '' . completed itsdecisionm akingprocess,andwhen theresultofthatprocessijonethatwilldirectly : ! ' affectthe parties.'' Jersey HeichtsNeighborhood Ass'n v.Glendeninc,174 F.3d 180,186(4th i , Cir.1999)(internalquotationmarksandalterationsomitted). Thus,anAPi claim dtaccrtzesatthe 11 timeofa snalagency action.'' Latin Am s.forSoc.& Econ.Dev.v.Adm li l roftheFed.Hichway I l Admin.,756F.3d447,464(6th Cir.2014)(citing 5U.S.C.j704:. I l Here,theArmy pennanently revoked Dr.Kirchhoff'sm e 'dicalprivilegeson June 3,2009. l , Theplaintiffwasinvoluntadly discharged f' rom theArmy in Octoberof2011. Thatsnm emonth, theABCM R deniedhisapplication forreview and correction. BecauseDr.Kirchhoffdid notfile anyAPA1claimsarisingeom the instrmtaction tmtilOctobe:9,2018,m orethan six years later, 1 11 thosedecisionsaretime-barred. II. Claim s A zainstthe A rim onv D efendants 1 l TheArimonydefendantshavemovedtodismissthecomplainttmdlrRules12(b)(5)and 1 , 12(b)(6). Forthefollowingreasons,thecourtconcludesthatthecomplaintJfailstostateaclaim J againsttheArim ony defendants.; According,thecourtwiltgranttheirmotlon to dismiss. A. D ConstitutionalClaims ! ! i r.Kirchhoffallegesinaconclusoryfashionthatal1ofthedefendanls,includingArimony andhislaw firm,ç'aregovernmentactorsapd/orentitiesoftheUrlited Sytes.'' Compl.! 17. ! . However,thecomplaintisentirely devoidoffactsthatwouldplausiblysupjo lrtthe' detee ination that' theArimony defendantsarefederalorstateactors,orthattheyconsgiredwith thefederal .1 defendantsto violate the plaintiffsçonstitutionalrights. See Cooney v.Rbssiter,583 F.3d 967, : 971 (7th Cir 2009)(emphasizing that,even before Twombly and Igbal,ilça bare allegation of - . :1 conspiracy wasnotenough to surviveamotiontodismissforfailuretostathaclaim' '). Because l : the constitutionalprovisionscited in the complaintdo notapply to private éctors,CotmtsIand 11 failto stateaclaim againsttheArimony defendants.z See. e.g.,Dixon v.Cobum Dairv,369 F.3d l j ! 811,817n.5(4thCir.2004)CTOtheextentthatDixon'scomplaintcanbçih terpretedasstatinga ) i causeofaction based directly on the.FirstAm endm ent,such aclaim would: betooinsubstantialto invoke federalquestion jurisdiction because the FirstAmendmentdoesl notapply to private I 7In lightofthe court'sdecision,thecourtneed notaddressthe altem ativeground fordismissalunder Rulel2(b)(5)basedoninsuftkientserviceofprocess. 8Additionally,forthe re%ons setforth above,the plaintiffs constimtlo 'na1claims are clearly time-barred. employers.');Smith v.M tchen,156 F.3d 1025, 1028 (10th Cir.1997) (RlElven ifwe were l generously to construe Smith'scom plaintasraisingaBivens-styleclaim forçonducttmderfederal i ; IT law (which ltisnot),theclaim stillwouldbedescientasamatterof1aw bqi causetheunderlying I; constimtionalrightthatSmithasserts--dueprocessundertheFifthAmendpent- doesnotapply I totheconductofprivateactorswhoaredefendantsinthiscase.''). B. State L aw C laim s Liberally construed, the plaintiY s complaint also asserts claim s of fraud, legal malpractice, andintentionalinfliction ofemotionaldistressagainsttheArim l ony defendants. For the following reasons,the courtagreeswith the Arim ony defendantsthat!such claim s mustbe . j dism issed astmtim ely. ; ' ! Cnder Virginia law,a two-year stattlte of limitations applies to; 'claims offraud and intentionalinfliition ofemotionaldistress. See Schm idtv.Household Fin.lCorp..II,661S.E.2d 834'838(Va.2008)tThestatdeofiimitationsforacmalha'udandconstvc ivefraud...istwo 1 t ; years.'')(citingVa.Codej8.01-243);Luddekev.AmanaRefrigeration.lncp,387S.E.2d502,504 J ' (Va. 1990) (ssllqntentionalinfliction of emotionaldistress,an action f(ir personalinjtu'y,is .I i . govemedby atwo-yearstatuteoflimitations.'')(citingVa.Code.j801.243). A claim forfraud accnzesçtwhen such fraud ' . . . i isdiscovered orbytheexercise ofduediligencereasonably should ' j have been discovered.'' Va.Code Ann.j 8.01-249. StAny cause of I àction for intentional i ë nfliction of em otionaldistress accrues and the time lim itation begins to nm when the tortis committed.'' M ahonyv.Becker,435S.E.2d 139,141(Va.1993). 1 ; I l Asindicatedabove,ArimonyrepresentedDr.Kirchhoffççfrom2019to2011. 55Compl. !15.Dr.Kirchhoffçifired''Afimonyattheendof2011,'aftertheattbme ' 1 Iydeclinedtoflea - lawsuiton theplaintiffsbehalfandadvised him thattEhedidn'thaveabasijforsuing''theArm y. : I Ld-a!! 52-54. BecauseDr.Kirchhoffdid notGle the instantaction tmtilapproximately seven ' 1 yeazslater,thecourtagreeswiththedefendantsthattheclaimsforf' raudand1 l ntentionaliviction li - of em otional distress are untim ely. Although Dr.Kirchhoff sllm marily' ;alleges that he was I 11 Glunaware''ofany Gçfraud-related crimes''tmtilhecontacted anon-profitlegalj i organizationin2018, j ' thereisno simply no plausiblebasisforconcludingthat,Stdespitetheexercisrofduediligence,he l I could nothave discovered the alleged fraud (except) within the two-yùar period before he lve, ignoranceofthe commenced theactionl.q'' Schm idt,661 S.E.2d at839). Asindicated abb i law,even by pro #qlitigants,doesnottollthe limitationsperiod. See Ott 909 F.3d at661. Nor .. doestheIfcontinuingviolation''doctrineapply intheinstantcase. SçeScocci ' insv.Lee'sCrossing il HomeownersAss'n, 718F.3d262,271(4thCir.2013)(explainingthatactst loccurringoutsidethe i ! stamte of lim itationsm ay be considered tmderthe Gçcontinuing violation'''doctrine only Stwhen ' 1 , thereisafixed and continuing prac 'ticeoftmlawfulactsboth before and è udng the limiGtions I l period'')(internalquotationmarksomitted). I j The courtlikewise concludes thatany claim for legalm alpracticel iagainstthe Arim ony , 11 defendantsistime-barred. InVirgirlia,GlltjhestatuteoflimitationsforlegalJ lmalpracticeactionsis thesnme asthose forbreach ofcontractbecausealthough legalm alpracticei sotmdsintort,itisthe 1 contractthatgivesriseto the duty.'' Shipman v.Knzck,593 S.E.2d 319,322 (Va.2004). i l fi l ve-yearstatute oflim itationsappliesto contractactionsbased on awritten contract. Va.Code 1 l j8.01-246. Thestamtebeginstorunççwhen theattorney'swork on thepm1 icularundertakingat J 1 issuehasteased.''1d.at324;seealsoMoonlightEnters..LLCv.Mroz,79J 7 5S.E. f 2d536,539(Va. 2017)(explainingthatç tthelimitationperiod .beginson...thedatewhè 4ntheattomeyrenders . his çlas'tprofessiohalservices'related to the particularundertnking'') Because Arimony Was I I allegedly fired in 2011,Dr.Kirchhoffhad until2016 to pursue a claim for legalmalpractice. Consequently,theinstantaction,filedtwo yearslater,isclearly untim ely. I l C onclusion . , F l i orthereasonsstated,thecourtwillg' rantthedefendants'motionstgdismiss. TheClerk ' t isdirectedtosend copiesofthismem orandum opinion andtheaccompanyinùordertotheplaintiff 2 1 and allcotmselofrecord. F DATED:This X I * I dayofApril,2019. ! : 1 ! l i l i 1 1 , - SeniorU ted StatesD istrict' :Judge ; 1 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
