DWAN BRAY and AARON BRAY, individually and as
parents, natural guardians, and next friends on behalf
of N. B.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Defendants,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee. |
No. 23-3357 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:20-cv-00699—Matthew W. McFarland, District Judge.
Argued: January 24, 2024
Decided and Filed: March 29, 2024
Before: GIBBONS, WHITE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Dwan and Aaron Bray (collectively,
“plaintiffs”) brought this medical malpractice suit in state court individually and on behalf of
their minor child, N.B., against Dr. Timothy J. Thress and various medical entities and actors
(collectively, “defendants”). Plaintiffs sought damages stemming from defendants’ negligence
as to Dwan Bray’s pre-natal care and subsequent birth of baby N.B. But unbeknownst to
plaintiffs, Thress was employed by a federally funded health center during his treatment of Bray.
In line with the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act (“FSHCAA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 233(g)–(n), Thress removed the suit to federal court and the United States substituted itself for
Thress, requiring plaintiffs to bring their claim against the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).
The government then moved for dismissal, arguing that plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
FTCA’s administrative exhaustion requirement. Plaintiffs, in turn, moved first to remand the
action to state court, arguing that the FSHCAA did not apply, and later to amend their complaint
to demonstrate compliance with the FTCA’s exhaustion requirement. The district court denied
both of plaintiffs’ motions, finding the FSHCAA applicable and any attempt to amend plaintiffs’
complaint futile. Accordingly, the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ FTCA claim without
prejudice and remanded plaintiffs’ claims against the remaining defendants to state court.
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to remand and its dismissal of their
FTCA claim. Because the district court was correct in both respects, we affirm. |