Magee v. United States

No. 96-2357

WILLIAM MAGEE,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges,
and O'Toole*, U.S. District Judge.

Francis J. Caruso, III
with whom
Paul J. Gillespie
and
Gillespie &
Associates were on brief for appellant.
Julie
S.
Schrager, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.

July 31, 1997

*Of the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

STAHL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant William

Magee appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of

defendant-appellee, the United States, with respect to his

personal injury action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28

U.S.C. S 1346(b) ("FTCA").

Background

This case arose out of an automobile accident in

which Peter Puzzanghera, an outpatient at the Veterans

Administration Medical Center in Bedford, Massachusetts

("VAMC") rear ended Magee. As a result of the accident, Magee

suffered physical injuries and property damage for which he

seeks damages from the federal government. By way of

background, we describe the relationship between the Veterans

Administration ("VA") and Puzzanghera in order to explain how

Magee came to sue the United States.

Puzzanghera has long battled chronic, paranoid

schizophrenia. In August, 1988 he was involuntarily committed

to Metropolitan State Hospital. In July, 1989, he was

transferred to VAMC where he remained as an inpatient until

late June, 1990. On June 20, 1990, he was discharged to the

Fort Hill Community Care Home and continued to receive

treatment at VAMC on an outpatient basis.

Puzzanghera's treatment at VAMC included periodic

intermuscular injections of Prolixin Decanoate ("Prolixin").

VAMC physicians prescribed Prolixin to help Puzzanghera manage

-2-
2

his schizophrenia. Following the onset of this treatment,

Puzzanghera experienced restlessness and difficulty in moving

his tongue, side effects that his doctors have attributed to

the Prolixin.

VAMC has established a policy entitled Veterans

Driver Evaluation Program for the purpose of aiding veterans in

obtaining driver's licenses from the Massachusetts Registry of

Motor Vehicles ("RMV"). Pursuant to this policy, VA doctors

refer "selected patients whose rehabilitative prospects might

be enhanced by having a driver's permit or license" to a VA

psychologist for evaluation as to suitability. Depending on

the outcome of this evaluation, the psychologist either

determines that the patient is not a suitable candidate for a

license, or submits a letter of support to the RMV on behalf of

the patient. The letter details the patient's medical

treatment and indicates that beyond the information in the

letter, the VA knows of no "contraindication" to the RMV's

consideration of the patient for restoration or continuance of

driving privileges. The VA acknowledges in the letter,

however, that the final decision regarding a given patient's

driving privileges rests with the RMV.

At some time prior to April 1990, Puzzanghera

requested his treating physician, Dr. Albert Gaw, to assist him

in obtaining a driver's license. Dr. Gaw referred Puzzanghera

to Dr. Robert Avey, a counselling psychologist at VAMC. After

-3-
3

Dr. Avey evaluated Puzzanghera, he sent a letter to the RMV on

his behalf. Puzzanghera subsequently received driving

privileges.

In the afternoon of October 29, 1990, while Magee sat

in his car at a red light, Puzzanghera rear ended Magee's car,

causing bodily injury to Magee and damage to his vehicle. A

police officer who arrived shortly after the accident noted

that Puzzanghera appeared "very slow and deliberate in his

actions." The officer performed two field sobriety tests which

Puzzanghera "passed with no problem." Puzzanghera informed the

officer that he was an outpatient at VAMC and had recently

received a shot of Prolixin. In fact, Puzzanghera had received

this shot approximately four hours prior to the accident.

Magee filed a complaint against the United States

under the FTCA in which he alleged that the VA negligently

allowed or enabled Puzzanghera to qualify for and obtain a

driver's license while on Prolixin, negligently failed to warn

Puzzanghera of the side effects of Prolixin, negligently failed

to properly monitor and supervise Puzzanghera's Prolixin

treatment, and negligently "fail[ed] in other respects that

will be shown at trial." According to Magee, the VA's

negligence caused his injuries. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of the United States on all of

Magee's allegations. This appeal followed.

-4-
4

Standard of Review

We review the award of summary judgment
de novo
. See

Ortiz-Pinero v. Rivera-Arroyo, 84 F.3d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1996).

Summary judgment is appropriate in the absence of a genuine

issue of material fact, when the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A

fact is material when it has the potential to affect the

outcome of the suit. See J. Geils Band Employee Benefit Plan

v. Smith
Barney
Shearson,
Inc., 76 F.3d 1245, 1250-51 (1st

Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 81 (1996). Neither party may

rely on conclusory allegations or unsubstantiated denials, but

must identify specific facts derived from the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and

affidavits to demonstrate either the existence or absence of an

issue of fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) & (e). The district

court's analysis does not bind us. See Mesnick v. General

Elec. Co.
, 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991). Instead, we may

affirm or reverse on any independently sufficient ground. See

id.

Discussion

The FTCA vests federal district courts with

jurisdiction over claims against the United States for damages

caused by

the negligent or wrongful act or omission
of any employee of the Government while
acting within the scope of his office or
employment, under circumstances where the

-5-
5

United States, if a private person, would
be liable to the claimant in accordance
with the law of the place where the act or
omission occurred.

28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). Fourteen statutory exceptions limit this

otherwise broad waiver of sovereign immunity. See 28 U.S.C. S

2680. To evaluate a claim brought pursuant to the FTCA,

therefore, we must first determine whether an exception

precludes the claim, and, if not, whether a private actor in

the state where the conduct occurred would be liable to the

plaintiff under the circumstances. We conclude that the

discretionary function exception to the FTCA bars Magee's claim

with respect to the VA's actions regarding Puzzanghera's

driver's license. We also conclude that Massachusetts

statutory law precludes his claims of negligent treatment.

A. The Letter

As indicated, several exceptions limit the breadth of

the government's potential liability under the FTCA. One, the

discretionary function exception, operates to deprive a

district court of jurisdiction over

1. The district court analyzed Magee's complaint in negligence
terms, holding that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, S 36B precluded
some of Magee's claims and that he failed to establish the
elements of common law negligence on his remaining claims. In
arriving at our conclusion we depart from the reasoning of the
district court in determining that the discretionary function
exception to the FTCA bars Magee's claims arising out of the
VA's efforts on behalf of Puzzanghera's driver's license. We
reiterate, however, that in evaluating an appeal from the grant
of summary judgment, we may affirm for any independently
sufficient ground supported by the record. See Mesnick, 950
F.2d at 22.

-6-
6

[a]ny claim . . . based upon the exercise
or performance or the failure to exercise
or perform a discretionary function or
duty on the part of a federal agency or an
employee of the Government, whether or not
the discretion involved be abused.

28 U.S.C. S 2680(a);
see
Kelly v.
United States
, 924 F.2d 355,

360 (1st Cir. 1991) ("When a claim is covered by the

discretionary function exception, it must be dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.").

Though not abundantly clear from the statutory

language, ample authority guides our determination of whether

the discretionary function exception serves to bar a claim

against the government. See, e.g., United States v. Gaubert,

499 U.S. 315, 322-25 (1991); United
States v. Berkovitz, 486

U.S. 531, 536-39 (1988); Attallah v. United
States, 955 F.2d

776, 782-83 (1st Cir. 1991);
Irving v.
United States
, 909 F.2d

598, 600-03 (1st Cir. 1990). First, we must determine whether

the conduct in question was discretionary in nature. See

Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322; Attallah, 955 F.2d at 783. If the

conduct was discretionary in nature, we must then consider

whether it "[was] of the kind that the discretionary function

exception was designed to shield."
Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23

(internal quotation and citation omitted); see Attallah, 955

F.2d at 783.

The discretionary nature of governmental conduct

depends on whether that conduct involved an element of judgment

or choice. See Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322. We evaluate the

-7-
7

nature of the conduct rather than the status of the actor to

determine "'whether the action is a matter of choice for the

acting employee.'" Attallah, 955 F.2d at 783 (quoting

Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536). An action, for example, does not

involve an element of choice "if a federal statute, regulation

or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an

employer to follow, because [t]he employer has no rightful

option but to adhere to the directive." Gaubert, 499 U.S. at

322 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

The language of VAMC's Veterans Driver Evaluation

Program contemplates a series of steps VA staff must undertake

upon deciding to assist a veteran in obtaining a driver's

license. The program, however, cannot be characterized as

requiring a particularized course of conduct for the VAMC

staff. See, e.g., Kelly, 924 F.2d at 360-61 (interweaving of

"imperatives with weaker, precatory verbs and generalities" may

be more characteristic of discretion than of mandatory

directives). Within those steps, the program leaves broad

discretion to VA psychologists in their evaluation of the

patient and their ultimate decision whether to write to the RMV

on the patient's behalf. The program also grants broad

discretion to treating physicians in deciding whether to refer

interested patients to a psychologist for evaluation.

The uncontroverted deposition of Dr. Robert Avey, the

VA counselling psychologist who wrote on behalf of Puzzanghera,

-8-
8

underscores the discretionary nature of the process. Dr. Avey

testified that his evaluation protocol included reviews of

patient treatment histories, interviews with patients and

consultations with other professionals such as physicians or

social workers if necessary, all aimed at gauging the propriety

of facilitating the restoration of a given patient's driving

privileges. Thus, we are satisfied that VAMC's program is

sufficiently discretionary to meet the first inquiry of the

discretionary function exception. See
Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322

(indicating that conduct involving element of choice or

judgment is discretionary).

Having determined that the action was discretionary,

we turn to the second inquiry, whether the decision of VA

doctors to assist Puzzanghera in applying for his driver's

license was "of the kind that the discretionary function

exception was designed to shield." Id. at 322-23 (internal

quotation and citation omitted). The exception does not serve

to protect all discretionary actions of governmental employees.

Instead, it "protects only governmental actions and decisions

based on considerations of public policy." Id. at 323

(internal citation omitted). In this way, the exception serves

its purpose of preventing "judicial second guessing" of

legislative and administrative decisions grounded in social,

economic, and political policy through the medium of an action

-9-
9

in tort. See Attallah, 955 F.2d at 783; Irving, 909 F.2d at

600.

As the Supreme Court has indicated, "it will most

often be true that the general aims and policies of the

controlling [program] will be evident from its text."
Gaubert,

499 U.S. at 324. A government statute or program that allows

the government actor discretion creates a presumption that the

isolated discretionary act reflects the same considerations

which led to promulgation of the program. See id. The

exception is not reserved solely for planning level decisions

establishing programs. See id. at 323. The exception also

protects "the actions of Government agents involving the

necessary element of choice and grounded in the social,

economic or political goals. . . ." Id. In short, "the

discretionary function exception insulates the Government from

liability if the action challenged . . . involves the

permissible exercise of policy judgment." Berkovitz, 486 U.S.

at 537.

We view VAMC's decision to assist Puzzanghera in

obtaining a driver's license as a clear, permissible exercise

of policy judgment. As we have already stated, the policy

contemplates significant discretion on the part of the VA staff

at every step of the process. The Veterans Driver Evaluation

Program includes a clearly stated policy objective, "to assist

veterans to apply for driving privileges" in cases where

-10-
10

driving privileges are likely to enhance the patient's

rehabilitative prospects. This objective folds neatly into the

VA's mission of providing a range of care and assistance for

veterans. A series of judgments leading up to the ultimate

decision under this program, whether to write to the RMV, all

involve considerations of veteran rehabilitation.

Magee unpersuasively argues that VAMC's assistance to

Puzzanghera in obtaining a driver's license constituted part of

his medical treatment. In Collazo v. United States, 850 F.2d

1, 3 (1st Cir. 1988), we held that a claim of negligent medical

treatment by a government actor, unaccompanied by any

discretionary, policy based conduct, falls outside the

parameters of the discretionary function exception. We

distinguished conduct made on purely medical grounds from

conduct made pursuant to governmental policy, pointing out that

where "only professional, nongovernmental discretion is at

issue, the discretionary function exception does not apply."

Id. at 3 (internal quotation omitted).

The decision to write a letter to the RMV on

Puzzanghera's behalf fell within the parameters of VAMC's

rehabilitative policy. Puzzanghera, not VAMC physicians,

initiated the process by asking for a driver's license

referral. Pursuant to the program, Dr. Avey, a counseling

psychologist and not Puzzanghera's treating psychiatrist, made

the ultimate decision to write a letter to the RMV on behalf of

-11-
11

Puzzanghera. The program creates a general process applicable

to all patients seeking a license; it did not constitute part

of Puzzanghera's individualized medical treatment. Puzzanghera

did not receive his license, for example, to help control his

schizophrenia. Rather, the decision to write a letter of

support was made in contemplation of his rehabilitative needs.

We conclude that VAMC's efforts on Puzzanghera's

behalf with respect to the Veterans Driver Evaluation Program

fall within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

Accordingly, that exception bars the portion of Magee's claim

that rests on the VA's efforts on behalf of Puzzanghera's

driver's license.

B. The Prolixin

Magee also claims that the VA's negligent medical

treatment of Puzzanghera caused his injuries. Specifically,

Magee claims that the VA failed to properly monitor and

supervise Puzzanghera's Prolixin treatment and failed to warn

him adequately of the adverse side effects he might experience

as a result of the Prolixin doses. Magee attributes the

2. We point out that "where the government is performing a
discretionary function, the fact that the discretion is
exercised in a negligent manner does not make the discretionary
function exception to the FTCA inapplicable." Attallah, 955
F.2d at 784 n. 13 (citing
Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 539). Whether
VAMC negligently exercised its discretion with respect to
Puzzanghera's driver's license, therefore, is irrelevant to our
analysis.

-12-
12

accident to that alleged negligent failure to warn Puzzanghera

and properly supervise his treatment.

This claim derives from Puzzanghera's specific

medical treatment, which as we have indicated, falls outside

the protection of the discretionary function exception. See

Collazo, 850 F.2d at 3. We do not identify, nor does the

government point us to, any other statutory exception that

might bar this claim. In the absence of a statutory exception,

the FTCA imposes liability on the government for conduct of its

employees within the scope of their employment "under

circumstances where the United States, if a private person,

would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of

the place" where the conduct occurred. 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b).

"To identify the applicable rule of substantive law,"

therefore, "the FTCA directs us to determine the substantive

law that would apply to 'a private individual under like

circumstances' in the jurisdiction where the injury occurred."

In re All Maine Asbestos Litig.
, 772 F.2d 1023, 1027 (1st Cir.

1985) (quoting United
States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150, 153

(1963)); see Kelly, 924 F.2d at 359. We turn to the law of

Massachusetts, the situs state, to determine whether Magee can

hold the government liable in this case.

We agree with the district court that Magee failed to

provide evidence in the record from which a jury could have

found that the VA's treatment of Puzzanghera caused the

-13-
13

accident. See
Borden v.
Betty Gibson Assoc., Inc.
, 574 N.E.2d

1020, 1022 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991) (indicating that causation is

necessary to recovery for negligence). Magee points to the

Prolixin shot Puzzanghera received four hours prior to the

accident, the various side effects Puzzanghera experienced as

a result of the Prolixin, namely restlessness and difficulty

controlling his tongue, the police officer's notation that

Puzzanghera appeared slow and deliberate at the scene of the

accident, Magee's own impression of Puzzanghera at the scene,

and Puzzanghera's inability to remember the details of the

accident.

Magee does not, however, explain how any of these

pieces of evidence, either in isolation or in the aggregate,

would allow a jury to conclude that the VA's alleged negligent

treatment of Puzzanghera caused the accident. Nothing in the

record suggests, for example, that the restlessness or tongue

control side effects somehow caused Puzzanghera to drive into

Magee. Nor does the record offer a basis to conclude that the

police officer's characterization of Puzzanghera related to his

3. We note that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, S36B would appear to
bear on the question of whether VAMC had any duty to Magee.
Given that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has not yet
construed S 36B and our own conclusion that the record fails to
support at least one essential element of negligence, we need
not determine the applicability of S 36B to this case.

-14-
14

treatment at VAMC. In short, Magee lacks any evidence that

would allow a jury to base a conclusion as to causation on

anything other than speculation. See id. (indicating that a

recovery in negligence cannot be based on speculation as to

causation).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district

court's disposition of Magee's complaint.

Affirmed. Costs to Appellee.

4. Magee's expert, Dr. Catherine Larned, points to
Puzzanghera's medical records and notes that on one occasion
(June 12, 1990) Puzzanghera appeared "somewhat lethargic" at an
appointment, and that on another occasion (June 19, 1990)
Puzzanghera reported that a nap on his lunch break caused him
to return late to work. The record, however, in no way
supports even an inference that Puzzanghera was either
experiencing these indications at the time of the accident, or
that they were caused in any way by Puzzanghera's treatment at
VAMC.

-15-
15