Richard Allgeier, Maria D. Boldrick, Intervening v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a plaintiff’s knee surgery, ordered after the filing of an administrative 6 claim, was not reasonably foreseeable due to relative improvement in her condition and 7 her doctor’s indication that her injuries were cured
• noting that the state rule making doctors “ ‘automatically unavailable’” did not apply to application of Rule 32(a)(3)(E)
• noting that “[f]ailure to name the United States in an FTCA suit results in a fatal lack of jurisdiction”
• finding no cases to support a finding of a “federal practice to regard doctors as ‘automatically unavailable’”
• applying only the “government notice provision” to decide whether the United States had proper notice of the lawsuit for relation back purposes
• dismissing FTCA claim because the plaintiff named the wrong party and substitution was denied

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).