Ruhmshottel v. United States of America, No. 3:2020cv05425 - Document 20 (W.D. Wash. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, granting 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

Download PDF

Ruhmshottel v. United States of America Doc. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 CAROLINE SMITH RUHMSHOTTEL, individually and as personal representative on behalf of Estate of Philip Eugene RUHMSHOTTEL, and PHILIP EUGENE RUHMSHOTTEL, CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05425-RJB ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. 17 This matter comes before the Court on the United States’ Partial Motion to Dismiss 18 Complaint (Dkt. 15). Defendant, United States of America, moves to dismiss one count of 19 Plaintiff Caroline Smith Ruhmshottel’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant 20 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). 21 The Court has considered the motion, Plaintiffs’ response (Dkt. 18), Defendant’s reply 22 (Dkt. 19), the supporting documents, and the remaining file. 23 24 ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. BACKGROUND This matter arises out of injuries Philip Ruhmshottel allegedly sustained at the Vancouver 4 Campus of the U.S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Portland Medical Center (“VA”) on May 5 14, 2019 after hospital providers negligently failed to prevent him from falling. Dkt. 1. 6 On June 11, 2019, Plaintiff Carolyn Ruhmshottel (“Mrs. Ruhmshottel”) filed a Standard 7 Form 95 (“SF-95”): Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death with the U.S. Department of Veterans 8 Affairs (“VA”). Dkt. 15. This form identified the claimant as “Philip Eugene Ruhmshottel, 9 submitted by wife Carolyn Ruhmshottel” and listed the basis of the claim as “[e]xtensive 10 personal injury [that] occurred to Philip E. Ruhmshottel on the morning of Mary 14, 2019.” Id. 11 The claim requested damages in the amount of $2,000,000 for “personal injury.” Id. at 2. 12 Mrs. Ruhmshottel submitted supplemental letters on December 3, 2019 and December 5, 13 2019. In them she wrote, “[t]he traumatic brain injury received from the fall on May 14, 2019 14 has devastated Phil and our family. Phil went from an independent moderately active man to 15 now a homebound, frail, diminished, at-risk man.” Dkt. 18-1 at 10. 16 The VA denied the claim on January 13, 2020. Dkt. 15. Mr. Ruhmshottel passed away 17 on March 18, 2020, and Plaintiff’s counsel notified the VA of Mr. Ruhmshottel’s death by letter 18 dated April 4, 2020. Id.; Dkt. 18-1 at 26. 19 On May 5, 2020, Plaintiff Caroline Smith Ruhmshottel filed this lawsuit. Dkt. 1. The 20 complaint brings two claims: one brought in her capacity as Representative of the Estate of 21 Philip Eugene Ruhmshottel, and one brought in her individual capacity. Id. 22 23 B. PENDING MOTION In the pending motion, Defendant moves to dismiss only the claim brought by Mrs. 24 ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - 2 1 Ruhmshottel in her individual capacity. Dkt. 15. It is not clear from the complaint whether this 2 claim is for loss of consortium or wrongful death, but Defendant argues it should be dismissed in 3 either case because Mrs. Ruhmshottel did not exhaust administrative remedies before 4 commencing this lawsuit, as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). 5 In response, Plaintiff argues that the administrative claim filed in June 2019 applied to 6 both Mr. and Mrs. Ruhmshottel, and, therefore, Mrs. Ruhmshottel properly exhausted 7 administrative remedies and may claim both loss of consortium and wrongful death. Dkt. 18. 8 The parties agree that the maximum recoverable damages are $2,000,000, as alleged in the 9 administrative claim. Id. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 A. STANDARD FOR MOTION TO DISMISS 12 A complaint must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) if, considering the factual 13 allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the action: (1) does not arise under the 14 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or does not fall within one of the other 15 enumerated categories of Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution; (2) is not a case or 16 controversy within the meaning of the Constitution; or (3) is not one described by any 17 jurisdictional statute. Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962); D.G. Rung Indus., Inc. v. 18 Tinnerman, 626 F.Supp. 1062, 1063 (W.D. Wash. 1986); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal 19 question jurisdiction) and 1346 (United States as a defendant). When considering a motion to 20 dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the court is not restricted to the face of the pleadings, so it 21 may review any evidence to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction. 22 McCarthy v. United States, 850 F.2d 558, 560 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052 23 (1989); Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler, 710 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1983). A federal court 24 ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - 3 1 is presumed to lack subject matter jurisdiction until plaintiff establishes otherwise. Kokkonen v. 2 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated 3 Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). Therefore, plaintiff bears the burden of proving the 4 existence of subject matter jurisdiction. Stock West, 873 F.2d at 1225; Thornhill Publishing Co., 5 Inc. v. Gen’l Tel & Elect. Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979). 6 B. STANDARD FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION UNDER FTCA 7 The FTCA is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims made against the 8 United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2647. Before bringing a lawsuit pursuant to the 9 FTCA, a plaintiff must first present his or her claim to the appropriate federal agency. 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2675(a). Only after the agency denies his or her administrative claim may the claimant file a 11 federal tort claim. Id. This requirement is “jurisdictional in nature, and thus must be strictly 12 adhered to.” Jerves v. United States, 966 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 The administrative exhaustion requirement applies equally to a derivative claim such as 14 loss of consortium. See Johnson v. United States, 704 F.2d 1431, 1442 (9th Cir. 1983); Barber v. 15 Kone, Inc. 118 Fed. Appx. 276, 278 (9th Cir. 2004). This is because the purpose of the 16 exhaustion requirement is to facilitate settlement at the agency level, but the agency cannot 17 investigate a claim and work toward resolution without notice that a claim exists. Id.; citing 18 Heaton v. United States, 383 F.Supp. 589, 591 (S.D.N.Y. 1974) (mere appearance of claimant’s 19 wife’s name on SF-95 form “could not have put the government on notice that she was claiming 20 loss of consortium and services.”). Therefore, without sufficient notice of a claim at the 21 administrative level, courts lack jurisdiction to hear that claim. Id. 22 23 1. Loss of Consortium Mrs. Ruhmshottel did not present her claim for loss of consortium to the VA. The SF- 24 ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - 4 1 95 form identified Mr. Ruhmshottel as the claimant. Dkt. 18-1 at 5. In letters dated December 3 2 and December 5, 2019, Mrs. Ruhmshottel wrote, “I am writing on behalf of my husband Philip 3 E. Ruhmshottel.” Id. at 10 and 13. While Mrs. Ruhmshottel was clearly facilitating her 4 husband’s administrative claim, her signature on the SF-95 form and notice that his injury 5 devastated the family did not clearly raise her own, individual claim. 6 7 Because Mrs. Ruhmshottel did not raise loss of consortium at the administrative level, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear her claim. 8 2. Wrongful Death 9 Similarly, Mrs. Ruhmshottel did not present a wrongful death claim at the administrative 10 level. In a letter dated April 4, 2020 titled, “Re: My client: Philip E. Ruhmshottel through 11 Beneficiary Caroline S. Ruhmshottel Administrative Tort Claim,” Plaintiffs’ counsel wrote, 12 “This is our notice that the above client Mr. Philip Ruhmshottel, has died as a result of the fall 13 for which his claim was made and you should update your claim accordingly as he is now 14 deceased.” Dkt. 18-1 at 26 (emphasis added). This letter indicates that Mrs. Ruhmshottel was 15 involved in Mr. Ruhmshottel’s claim as “beneficiary,” not as an independent claimant. 16 17 Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Mrs. Ruhmshottel’s claim for wrongful death, and Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss should be granted. 18 19 III. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 20 United States’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. 15) IS GRANTED; 21 Caroline Smith Ruhmshottel is dismissed as a plaintiff in her individual capacity 22 only. 23 24 ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 21st day of April, 2021. A ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - 6

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.