Court Declares United States' Independence From the Plaintiff's Lawsuit by Way of Granting Motion To Dismiss

Independence Hall
Philadelphia, PA

In the case of Chrelashvili v. United States of America, No. 2:24-cv-02241-TJS (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2024 Savage, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant, The United States, in a personal injury action arising out of a trip and fall in a National Historical Park.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued the federal government after she allegedly tripped over a tree stump that was protruding through a sidewalk in Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia. 

The United States moved to dismiss by asserting that the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity applied. The United States argued that the exception applied because the dangerous condition of the property claimed of by the Plaintiff fell within the exclusive discretion of the National Park Service, whose officials had to balance competing policy interests within the limits of human and financial resources.

Based upon the case before it, the court concluded that the United States was indeed immune from the Plaintiff’s personal injury lawsuit under the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert.” www.Law.com (Dec. 5, 2024).

Source of image:  Photo by Miguel Sanz on www.pexels.com.

Third Circuit Rules that Federal Tort Claims Act Does Not Incorporate Certificate of Merit Requirements

In the case of Wilson v. U.S., No. 22-1940 (3d Cir. Aug. 21 2023 Chagares, C.J., Bibas, J., and Matey, J.) (Op. by Chagares, C.J.), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court erred in granting summary judgment to the government based upon the failure of a pro se prisoner to produce an expert report in a medical malpractice action.

The court ruled that the Federal Tort Claims Act did not incorporate the Certificate of Merit requirement found under Pa. R.C.P. 1042.3.

The appellate court also noted that the pro se prisoner Plaintiff did not otherwise have an adequate opportunity to seek out an expert or to conduct discovery due to his circumstances as an inmate during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 21, 2023).

Interesting Issues in Postal Truck Accident Case

In the case of Diawara v. United States, No. 18-3520 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2020 Pratter, J.), the court addressed various notable issues in a motor vehicle accident case involving a postal truck and the application of the Federal Tort Claims Act. In this decision, the court was addressing several pre-trial Motions In Limine. 

Of note, the court ruled that a prior Social Security Administration determination of the Plaintiff’s total disability did not serve to collaterally estop the government Defendant from arguing against the Plaintiff’s allegations of total disability. 

The court also noted that the determination by the Social Security Administration on the Plaintiff’s total disability could not be admitted into evidence by the Plaintiff as the Social Security Administration had utilized different standards and did not involve any adversarial proceedings. More specifically, the court rejected the Plaintiff’s Motion to Preclude the government from arguing that the Plaintiff was not disabled. The Plaintiff presented this motion in light of the fact that there was a Social Security Administration determination of full disability. The court found that the principles of collateral estoppel did not preclude the government from making an argument at this trial contrary to the determination by the Social Security Administration. 

The court additionally granted the Motion to Preclude the Social Security Administration Disability determination from coming into evidence after finding that the Social Security Administration had utilized different standards to reach that determination. The court also found that admitting that determination into evidence could cause confusion and possibly delay the trial.

It was held that the Plaintiff could still seek to admit the underlying evidence that was submitted to the Social Security Administration in support of an argument of a total disability as a result of the accident. 

The court additionally noted that the government Defendant could use the Social Security Administration determination to later offset any lost wages awarded in this matter. 

In another notable decision in this case, the court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to exclude one of the government Defendant’s medical expert’s testimony as being contradictory and cumulative of another government medical expert’s testimony. The court found that there was no error in the government’s decision to have an orthopedic surgeon opine as to the Plaintiff’s shoulder injuries and to have a neurologist, whose testimony of the Plaintiff sought to exclude, offer opinions on the Plaintiff’s alleged neurological injuries even though an orthopedic surgeon could be qualified to make neurological assessments as well. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 10, 2020).