Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coska v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)
Coska v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)
Coska v. United States, 1st Cir. (1997)
No. 96-2245
BARBARA COSKA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
John B. Manning,
_______________
Donald K. Stern,
_________________
United States
United
States Attorney,
Attorney,
appellee.
____________________
was
on
brief
Plaintiff-appellant Barbara
Coska
brought
Federal
Tort Claims
injuries
she
government
proper
suit
against
Act,
sustained
the United
28 U.S.C.
in
property. Holding
under
the
2671 et
__
seq.,
____
for
accident
on
slip-and-fall
that
States
Coska failed
to make
States
district
court
dismissed
the action
for
lack
of
alternative, granted
We affirm.
I.
Our
dismiss
review
of the
allowance
of
is de novo.
__ ____
the motions
to
See Borschow
___ ________
favorable to Coska.
F.3d at 14;
On
March 15,
walking on an ice
1993, Coska
slipped and
fell while
of the
Massachusetts.
Coska alleges
that she
suffered injuries,
by
the
United States
through
the
United States
Marshals
-22
Service.
to
maintain the
property
and held
Barlou responsible
for
and entrances to
the premises.
Barlou
the
Marshals
Service
and
to
Barlou Management
regarding
received personal
a result of a
caused
we represent
by
the
failure
to
ice from
the
sustained
(fractured
in
sidewalk
located
Broadway . . . .
a
three
fractured
places),
in
Ms.
ankle
and
is
The
letter
to
Barlou
employed
the
same
language
but
and ice
Neither
____________________
1.
That
letter
stated
in
relevant
as a result
part:
"Coska
of a slip
and
-33
of snow and
by
must submit
injury
could
allegedly caused
administratively
damages.
responded to Coska's
The letter
Injury, Damage,
that a claimant
in a "sum certain"
by the
incident before
adjudicate
her
claim
or Death)
counsel
(hereinafter "SF-95")
for any
the agency
for monetary
(Claim for
and stated
that the form should be completed and returned along with all
information
and
documentation
substantiating
the
claim.
not
Coska,
"demand packet"
it had
Thirteen
forwarded to
months
the United
later,
States the
Barlou,
but
Coska's
claim
against Barlou,
packet stated
that Barlou's
including
demand against
failure to clear
the entrances
and sidewalks adjacent to 386 West Broadway was "the sole and
________
proximate cause
________________
added).
of
the plaintiff's
The letter
against,
or
even
Marshals
Service.
contained
mention
no
of, the
accident."
(emphasis
assertion of
liability
United
States
or
the
____________________
2.
The
record
is unclear
as
to whether
Barlou
sent the
packet on
requested it.
Regardless,
or whether
it
was
the United
not
sent
by
States
Coska's
counsel.
-44
contact
the
United States
in response
to its
request for
Five
no word from
Coska.
On
letter
to Coska's counsel.
the claim,
Claims [sic]
Federal Tort
agency to administratively
In
its
since Coska's
first
communication with
the
government
Service
dated February
case.
14, 1995,
informing
in this letter
the government
handling the
procedural
requirements
reasons
disclosed
by the record,
the
demand packet
of
sent to
the
FTCA.
For
counsel enclosed a
Barlou "in
not
second copy of
the event
that [the
United
States
was]
missing any
information
[required] to
that.
A paralegal
assigned
-55
to
the case
called
Coska's
counsel
and requested
demand for
packet to Barlou.
sum certain.3
In
in the demand
SF-95 to
The United
counsel
on
June 20,
States sent
a third letter
1995, requesting
to Coska's
demand for
SF-95 form.
The
a sum
Marshals
15,
1995, having
received
no response
to these
requests.
On December
the United
States alleging
and breach of
negligence, breach
warranty of habitability.4
filed a motion to
against
of contract,
to
18, 1995,
a motion
dismiss, alternatively
characterizing it
as a
grant of
summary judgment.
II.
____________________
3.
The call
was
either placed
in
late March
before
the
just after
4.
Similar claims
The United
third party
complaint
against Sutherland
turn filed
(snow
removal
contractor).
-66
expiration of
made
one or
Coska and
two specific
requests for
a sum
certain from
More
requests (with
later.
the
accompanying
government
and the
copy
were
of the
made
demand packet
States for a
notice
Under
States is
the FTCA,
barred unless
agency within
two years
a tort
it is
of its
claim against
Cir. 1991).
An
accrual.
damages in a sum
certain.
other
See
___
to the
28 U.S.C.
administrative claim is
includes, among
the United
"properly presented"
it
Barlou
the FTCA.
when
forms)
of
SF-95
things, a
See 28 C.F.R.
___
properly presented
claim
for money
14.2(a);5 Corte______
____________________
5.
28 C.F.R.
be deemed
when a
Federal
claimant
95
to have
claim
been presented
agency receives
from
or other
incident,
and 2675, a
written notification
accompanied
by
claim
of an
for
death
to
have
-77
occurred by
jurisdictional
prerequisite
federal government.
for a
tort action
against the
F.2d 20,
The purpose
of the
sum
certain requirement
goes
it is to apprise the
government
and
of
its possible
liability
to provide
the
the
alleged
negligent episode
to
determine
if settlement
at 486 (quoting
(1st
Lopez v.
_____
Cir. 1985)).
reference the
objective.
Coska's letter,
Barlou demand
That packet
F.2d 806,
which incorporated
packet, failed to
809
by
achieve this
contained no information
about the
Indeed, by its
own terms, the packet asserted a claim that Barlou was solely
______
liable.
As the
of
the cases
claim
the
an appropriate substitute."
Coska cites,
to proceed despite
sum certain
failed
to
where this
a dispute over
requirement, had
assert explicitly
court has
none
allowed a
the fulfillment of
the plaintiff
damage
In
completely
amount against
the
United
Real,
____
States.
949
F.2d
See, e.g.,
___ ____
at
Santiago-Ramirez v.
________________
486-87;
Lopez,
_____
758
at 23; Corte______
F.2d 808-11;
cf.
___
-88
short.7
contrary,
the
in hopes of
United
States
sum certain.
made
All of
number
of
To the
specific
those requests
were
ignored.
____________________
6.
v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., 573 F.2d 609, 615-16 (9th Cir.
__________________________
1978)
is also misplaced.
The
requirement
requirement
Ninth
had
not
Circuit
been
of presenting
found
met
that
an administrative
the
because
sum
certain
neither
the
certain
claim
of
claimant(s).
damages
See House,
___ _____
other grounds by
__________________
explicitly
573 F.2d
Warren
______
v.
applicable
at 615-16,
between
the
overruled on
____________
to
banc). Similarly,
no "explicit[] link,"
id. at 616,
___
7.
The
government argues
independent
several
not
contractors, that
Barlou and
Sutherland were
liability was
not joint
and
Therefore, the
could not be
this
that
case,
United States
says, a demand
against Barlou
need
Sutherland were
not
address
whether
Barlou
To decide
and/or
able to
is far from a
Barlou constituted
a demand against
by
Coska
from
a demand against
United
States
As
have been
with
some
-99
claim would
well-made
affirming the
claim.
investigate
All
the claim,
of
letters.
rather
form in
the
It is
which
her
bar an otherwise
information
Coska argues,
than
the
dismissal of
necessary
was contained
to
in the
it
is
presented that
is
crucial. See,
___
e.g., Corte-Real,
____ __________
Santiago-Ramirez,
________________
984 F.2d at
949 F.2d
19 n.2.
at 486; see
___
However,
also
____
there was
States.
Cf.
___
requirement
Santiago-Ramirez,
________________
of 28
U.S.C.
2675
amount in
any
of
the
984
is
F.2d
at
19
satisfied when
(notice
claim
correspondence or
even
returned
total damages,
outcome.
the situation
a different
This is
of "bureaucratic overkill."
it a case
____________________
8.
We
reject
effectively
Coska's
merged the
argument
that
statutory notice
the
district
court
requirement of
U.S.C.
14.2(a).
28
United
writing,
F.2d
States
unless
claimant
has
presented,
in
-1010
Lastly,
impermissibly
for
sum
relied on
certain
limitations
period
addressing whether
even without
made
fails.
Coska
after
in
the
district
limitations period
her
court
repeated requests
expiration
of
decision.
government
of
the
to its
the consideration of
the
shortcomings
after
coming
the
that
the government's
made
that
argues
the one
passed,
the
Without
we find that
to two
requests
Coska's
claim
the
gave
Coska
submissions
adequate
and
that
notice
of
the
"perhaps"
the
Affirmed.
Affirmed
________
-1111