Crane v. United States

OR!GNAL
In the United States Court of _Federal Claims
No. l5-435C
Filed: May 17, 2016
****************************************
*
*
BRYAN O. CRANE, *
*
Plaintiff, pro se, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant. *
*
*
****************************************
Bryan O. Crane, St. James City, Florida, pro se,
F l LED
_ MAY 1 7 2016
Federal Tort Claims Act,
28 U.s.c. § 2672 U-S- COURT 0F
(Administrative Ad_]llzl§@r?=lilrl" CLA|MS
of Claims);
Maryland Wage Payment And
Collection Law;
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the
United States Court of
Federal Claims (Jurisdiction);
Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2501 (Statute
of Limitations).
C0urtney D. Enlow, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C.,
Counsel for the Government.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING THE GOVERNMENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
BRADEN, Jua'ge.
I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND.'
Bryan O. Crane is a former civilian employee of the Naval Air Systems Command
("NAVAIR"). Compl. 11 2. On February 12, 2000, Mr. Crane was injured in a work-related
accident. Compl. at 10.2 On February 3, 2003, Mr. Crane reported back to NAVAIR for work.
Compl. at ll. On February 7, 2003, Mr. Crane informed NAVAIR that he could not continue
1 The relevant facts were derived from Plaintiff’s April 29, 2015 Complaint ("Compl.")
and exhibits attached thereto ("Compl. Exs. 1-28").
2 Some portions of the April 29, 2015 Complaint have paragraph numbers; others do not.
F or those portions not within an enumerated paragraph, the court refers to the page number.
working, because "agreed upon ergonomic accommodations were not provided __, ;.__ ,,, [and] would
not be forthcoming within a reasonable period of time." Compl. at ll.
During the subsequent period when l\/lr. Crane was unable to report to work, he received
workers’ compensation benefits. Compl. at l0-ll. Between February l4, 2003 and April l3,
2005, however, the Defense Financial and Accounting Services ("DFAS"), NAVAIR’S payroll
provider, also continued to pay Mr. Crane’s wages. Compl. Ex. 5, at l2.
On February l3, 2004 and January 3, 2006, to repay wages mistakenly made by DFAS,
Mr. Crane sent DFAS two personal checks that totaled $16,837.06. Compl. Ex. 4, at 2; see also
Compl. Ex. 7, at l, 3. ln addition, Mr. Crane returned five government checks in the total amount
of $7,962.38, leaving an outstanding balance of $18,366.84 to be repaid. Compl. Ex. 4, at 2.
DFAS also deducted $10,280.00 from offset amounts allowable by law.3 Compl. Ex. 4, at 2. These
deductions left Mr. Crane with an outstanding balance of approximately $8,000.00. Compl. Ex.
4, at 2.
On July 3, 2006, Mr. Crane retired from federal service for medical reasons. Compl. Ex.
3, at 2. At the time of his retirement, DFAS estimated that Mr. Crane was entitled to a lump-sum
of $9,755.00 for accrued annual leave. Compl. Ex. 22. Because of l\/lr. Crane’s outstanding
balance, DFAS applied his annual leave due to eliminate the outstanding balance for overpaid
wages. Compl. Ex. 4, at 2. Mr. Crane claimed that DFAS improperly "confiscated $9,755.00 of
vacation pay to apply against [his] alleged and nonexistent debt." Compl. at l3.
On March l9, 2008, Mr. Crane appealed DFAS’s actions to the Office of Personnel
Management ("OPM"). Compl. Ex. 3, at 2. Mr. Crane disputed DFAS’s determination that he
owed money for salary overpayment during the tax years 2003 through 2006 and requested
reimbursement of the lump-sum annual leave payment that he did not receive. Compl. Ex. 3, at 2.
On March 3 l, 2008, OPM informed Mr. Crane that he had to file a claim with the Department of
Navy ("Navy"), before he could file a claim with OPM. Compl. Ex. 3, at 2. On March 3 l, 2008,
Mr. Crane filed a claim with the Navy. Compl. Ex. 3, at 2.
On May 5, 2008, Mr. Crane again sent a letter to the Navy disputing the amount owed.
Compl. Ex. 4, at l. Mr. Crane also asked United States Senator Bill Nelson to intervene on his
behalf. Compl. Ex. 4, at l. On April 24, 2008, DFAS responded to Senator Nelson including an
audit of Mr. Crane’s pay records that showed Mr. Crane was entitled to a refund of $l,386.5l that
was paid. Compl. Ex. 3, at 3; Compl. Ex. 4, at 2. On September l5, 2009, Mr. Crane’s claim was
denied. Compl. Ex. 3, at 2.
On October 9, 2009, Mr. Crane provided OPM with a copy of the denial letter. Compl.
Ex. 3, at 2. On November l7, 2009, OPM accepted the claim and requested an agency
administrative report ("AAR") from the Navy. Compl. Ex. 4; Compl. Ex. 3, at 2. On December
7, 2009, the Navy provided OPM with an AAR, including a detailed Audit Summary of Mr.
Crane’s pay records from 2003 through 2006. Compl. Ex. 4, at l. The December 7, 2009 AAR
__ ;,..``
3 These sources include state and federal taxes, as shown on Navy Audit Summaries from
2003 through 2006. Compl. Ex. 4, at 2-7.
....._ _'\._._._.. _, _..,_.....,,i__,,,.,,
l Case 2:O4-cv-0O363-.JE SPC Docu'menti Fi|ed 07/06/04 )Page 2 of 11 Page|D 6
'3 Page 2 of 2
Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment for damages against defendant, plus court costs.
oAr_ED»t,.,_."§E_’_£§_/.°,§" _M_t
"“ ““““ ' i" '''' ‘ ‘"‘“'"”"“"“ ' ";§z§,?az\,;"e* “ "“ ““““‘“" ““”“
'Plaintiffb``pi#-Zh;;'§”gent' l -é““-EHH'M ~-___¢_M M,Xttorn yw~'“`` MW_H_W'_*-'_.M_‘“'_JA'“W“__A”'_-r"
i;i»ai_nt=i_f.f»£m_é;j_t_s...~.s_.,...._,..._._» ._.,-_.,........._.._..- .»:A_t;(.).;;_é.y-._ -... __.~._*a_.t~t.. s-.___--... s
¢4_/AM.gEHiAW,.._-,_.._-.-. .-,.,.-.__.t_______,.,_ __,_-. -,&m_r;],ey _..-__, ,._...-._.-__.._.._ ._, …1,,___~,____
i5 §7¢?{c"'"“_"""'""_"``_""_“ "A?ii§l'iey " `` ""`` _"``+``h _"_"``
'§FIETl"f``f"¢%/‘K§EHF ""_"'"F``"``_"``"H'""``“ 'K``£§é'{i§"_'"``" "_" ``"_"_"``"``_``""
BRING THIS NOTICE WITH YOU AT ALL TIMES
"lf you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to
the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Deputy Court Administrator whose office is located at the Lee County justice Center,
1700 Monroe Street, Fort Myers, FL 3390|, and whose telephone number is (239) 335-2299 within two working days of your receipt of this
Statement of Claim; if you are hearing or voice impaired, call l-800-955-877l ."
Case 2:04-cv-00363-.JES)SPC Docuinent 2 Fi|ed 07/06/04 )Page 3 of 11 Page|D 7
Bryan O. Crane
Case # 250556528
3708 ss 1“ Place
Cape Cora1, FL 33904
Phone: (239) 542-0l02
October 20, 2002
J osc R Medina
Employment Standards Administration
Office of workers Compensation Prograrns
DFEC Centra1Mailroom
P.O. Box 8300 District 6
London, KY 40742-8300
Dear Mr. Medina,
I received your letter on 10/16/O2.
I am forced to accept the offer of 9/4/01 to return to work with the ergonomic recommendations
outlined in the offer and will perform the job, as I always have, to the best of my ability. I will
report on the date NAVAIR tells me the ergonomic adjustments will be in place.
You are forcing me to retum to work contrary to the findings and actions of every qualified
physician I have seen as well as numerous personnel from the Naval Air Systems Command
(NAVAIR) and Wasl1ington Office of Worker’s Compensation (WOWCP). You have obviously
disregarded everything in my file that indicates I should not work in an office environment and
arbitrarily decided that I can and should retum to work based on flawed evaluations for
ergonomic adjustment by other than physicians qualified to render a valid opinion on my
condition. The recommendations in the evaluation were properly discounted by NAVAIR and
WOWCP based upon valid logical and technical reasons as to why they would not work for my
specific work requirements and condition. There will be a high cost associated with putting the
ergonomic adjustments into place, disruption, after a three-year absence, to the NNAVAIR office
I work in, and a probable exacerbation of my condition.
l was injured on 2/12/0O, had successful neck surgery on 3/29/00 that required the reconstruction
of five of seven neck vertebrae, and have been unable to work since the accident due to residual
permanent spinal cord damage from the accident.
Due to the inexplicable foot-dragging of WOWCP and thereby the extreme uncertainty of our
income, my wife and I decided it was in our best interest for her to return to Federal service after
a twenty-year absence. My wife accepted a position in December 2001 with the U.S. Arrny
Corps of Engineers (USACE) in Fort Myers, Florida and in late January, 2002 we were relocated
to Fort Myers, Florida by the USACE. Iwill need sufficient time before my notice to report to
arrange for living accommodations in the Patuxent River Nava1Air Station area. Please notify
me as soon as possible of what Worker’s Compensation will contribute, if anything, to assist me
Case 2:O4-cv-00363-JES)-SPC Document 2 Fi|ed 07/06/04 Page 4 of 11 PagelD 8
l
in relocating my family and/or to provide temporary housing during a trial period to see if l can
in fact work without worsening my condition or endangering my health. Also, will Worlr 250556528 Page No: 3 need Dare; 01/07/2003
-:-¢v»_.uv``_``»ma- t
Case 2:04-cv-O0363-JES§SPC Document 2 Fi|ed 07/06/04 )°age 6 of 11 PagelD 10
File Number: 250556528
FF-o-H
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ADM|N|STRAT|ON
OFF|CE OF WORKERS' COMPENSAT|ON PROGRAMS
PO BOX 8300 D|STRICT 6
LONDON KY 40742-8300
Phone: (904) 357-4777
February 3, 2004
Date of |njury: 02/12/2000
Emp|oyee: Bryan Crane
BRYAN o. CRANE "
2625 E\GHTH AvENuE
sr JAr\/\Es ciTY, Fi_ 33956
Dear Mr. Crane:
l am writing in response to your compensation benefits for the period of February 7, 2003, to
present. You were re-employed as a part-time Modif``led Systems Accountant working six hours
per day, conforming to the restrictions placed on you by Dr. Weisher, effective February 3,
2003. Due to your re-employment your monetary compensation was reduced effective
February based upon your actual earnings.
You worked until February 7, 2003, at which time you withdrew from the part-time Modified
Systems Account position and rescinded your acceptance of their job offer, due to the agency
not fulfill their obligation to have the ergonomic equipment, based on restrictions imposed by Dr.
Weisher, in place when you arrived.
Due to the ergonomic equipment (higher work table and standing and rotating H|e cabinet) not
being in place when you reported to work, it has been determined that the job offer was not
suitable, so your Temporary Total Disability benefits will be reinstated retroactively to February
7. 2003, the date you withdrew and rescinded your acceptance of the part-time Modiied
Systems Accountant position.
Robert .~
Claims Ei_;;a_m_ine_r
NAVY
HUMAN RESOURCES OFF|CE
BU|LD|NG 1489 ROOM 121
23347 CEDAR PO|NT ROAD
PATUXENT R|VER, MD 20670
1 \/IARYLAND:Pse DiM-HatBQSSS-JES-SPC Document 2 Fi|ed 07/06/04 Page 7 of 11 Page|D llpage 1 Ofl
1 1
.Qui_c.k E.¥eferenco
Per Diem rates for MARYLAND 1 f;'\ *"d CONUS*
Effe¢rive october 1, 2002 '°"~° "‘
Per diem locality
z (Cities not listed or located |n listed count|es have a standard CONUS
§ sss l.od in a $r§ierv(izfslefo FY 2004 z
foran omeryearg inge rare ls sss Lodglng a sa'o MalE) Max‘mum _ _ _ L-B§£i§.-’-=-
- ' + __.,¢ ¥‘~'-fai:'-:,izzztziiz =.-=-=-»--~
C0unty and/or lodging M & IE
other defined (excludes rate per diem Properties
location taxes) rate (§) at Per
KCY City (l) (Z, §) _ _ (-'=\) (b) (<>) diem
-,..»_..... - '““” *"'.~
(For the counties of 150 50 200
Montgomery and Prince
George's, see District of
Columbia.)
§ Annap011s _ _ Anne Arundel
].Baltimor'e l 1 Ba1tim0re 1
Dorchester
te,e,_.tei
Frederick
(§ueen _
Lington Park/
Leonardtovvn/Lusby
Oc-ean City
(Jun 15 - Oct 31)
(N_ov 1 -Jun l4)
“ 7£, 625/tit w
http://www.policyworks.gov/org/main/mt/homepage/mtt/r)erdieni/perdiem.cfm?st=MARYLAND&y1=2003 5/13/2004
- §a~'»-i.'.-
p()v Mileag§g§§s'£:04-cv-OO363-JES-SPC Document 2. Fi|ed 07/06/04 Page 8 of 11 Page|D 12Page 1 Ofl
3 )
_ Sms»+:'i ``
z Demm»\:nr or D:F:Ns: "’~"*“ m '“* '“"* “‘* °°° °"‘* "°““
D|RECTORY _
' »¢.'-.~¢ .
n-».~.¢ 4_..-.,--.-..¢.»~......_.....,.._»._._..»=-»¢ . --
ég Rates l
Effeciive..Date Car Motorcyc|e Airpl_ane
J»._m 3o, 1991 _ l _ l $0.25
Jan 01, 1995 $o.so $o.zo $o.45
Jun 07, 1990 $o.a1 $o.zs- so.es
sep os, 1998 l ' n $0.325 so.zs $o.sa
Apr 01, 1999 $0.31 $0.26 $o.aa
san 14, 2000 $0.325 _ $o.zs ' _ __ $o.ss_
Jan 2z, 2001 $0.345 $0.275 $0.955
Jan 21, 2002 $o.aé§ $o.zs _ $o.97s l
san 01, 2003 `` $o.ss $0.275 $0.955
Jan 01, 2004 $0.375 $o.zss $o.sss '
Frgguent|y Asked Quest_igns.
welcome | Rates | Travel Regulations | FAQS | Lodg_inl& Dining | Directory | Questions | Other Sites
TO REPORT A PROBLEM W|TH TH|S S|TE. CONTACT THE N ENT MANA ER.
F’R|VA Y C TY E
httn://www.dtic.mil/perdienvfaq povpast.htrnl 5/ 13/2004
.» z
¢_».',e:t .at;.\,n_tn..¢'_ '._.»-._
I§l Send To Printer Back To Directions
Start: 1248 Calvert Beach Rd
Saint Leonard, MD
20685-2821 US
End: Patuxent River, MD
20670 US
Distance: 23.16 mi|esX' 5 5 )
Total Estimated Time: 48 minutes
\.!?i._!s_§!i_<)_!.\§.__ ._
o -. r-'¢».'.‘...»'»r»‘-.»-»'..'¢``»~' .'¢» ,.'.``.-t-.-'.¢t.'.``.~».~'» -».;.-.-'='.-."~i-_......- ,
1. start outgoing west on cALvERT eEAcH RD toward GARRISQN sT_,
m ..¢_.J--x~¢¢~
?'t rt<>tf"<>w MD:<#S- t
toFn"``ft§}?¥``l§nio"``i?fi§?lf"§)BZ``S;``:"S}LB:\J§``§T"ESK``B'§{EYi...=....-» ...........¢._.\,..-.,..»a~t.``~»\.»\¢.~ .-4..»
t summit
tihzurctu¢;nv.~»ssun..
g cucxttinifnnuualts - ,-
. ..‘_?..i§;f_.enss
1.1 miles
15.6 miles
> , ¢ n.;..¢»'¢t'»<¢ »..-»..-<.. ».,»=.~.a».'.\¢;...-.> . ¢n.».j»j¢. ..»``_'oj»_~» .»'¢j =».»=_.- »'-\. ._. ..»»~-.j.. t . .- -» -,.>\ ~¢».»-.-=-.~z 1-
i'iREE NOTCH RD. 4.6 miles
\.~l'\.»»\~.¢»»\na)w¢“e~n- ~\».\..e . -\,.--_\i``. . »_».``<~.¢``§'1.\-1~<. mo ._.-<.;»:.¢»r¢»-_~v»\»'.. » -:~--``_ -\». ¢:».»=.»_»;'.-=».~2 ~..r
e -\s -\ e..e< <-_ .. v .. . o
___``3~31_ 19. SW WILLISTON RD becomes FL-331 N/SE llTH ST.
1.8 miles
20. FL-331 N/SE 11TH ST becomes FL-24 E. 13.4 miles
¢- ~r..a;.. us
.¢,=s.i¢_r\is=
:_B_j! _2¥._ l onto 3 1 / Con lnue to 0 ow U 36._2. ml|es
eee_s.,_.» .., ,-..-.';s' .-.``:\ ., .. ", ..»'e-..'..,.````.. ..'.'..'. - 'e..ee_e . »'=,..;.':_~ '_; ..-‘;'.; ~s`` .....e.l.» .':. .».~.,..,¢.....`` . -_-...,.. ._-~ » s
' 22. Merge onto I-10 E via the ramp- on the ieft- toward JACKSONVILLE. 12.8 miles
_ “":``r"~l”e"'rc:le"o'nto°"i``:§§a°§"l§]”i;l;"e;it”nomtle;``éseyto'i}ii§ro" `` ``
`` _ _'__§IRP-QRT/_S_/°*\/_A_NNAH~ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _. _
Merge onto I-95 N"via"exit numbef 358-on the |eft- towatd I"NT'L`` 560 .|
_A_I__B_POR__T/_$A\/Al\ll_\_l__/\H-___ __ _ __
~ .é-.vnrf--``»'r'\~.--e,~».'\\.-..r.'s.e.-~'»'~»»'``=Z¢``»\-.-I-"S»}»`` »'<...'-.,» ``»-_\\».» ...¢-.i.~»\,.<¢-\-r.. »1.
42.4 miles
15.0 miles
`` 24.
25. Merge onto I-295 N via exit number 46 toward WASHINGTONe
n ’ s
.\ i\~.r~e: ei-¢»e
merge onto \``/A-'z"iiF‘E“§}i``§'§§i§``}§§mi>er 104
_§F$_.EEN/._F_QBT__A~"- "‘_I_L__L_._~ __ ___
s t~s-.i
_: 2s. vA-207 E becomes us-301 l\l. 35.3 miles
~.29. Turn RiGHT onto Buoos cREEi< Ro/Mo-234t 5.4 miles
30. Turn LEl-“r onto TRINITY cHuRcH Ro. 2.4 miles
31. Turn SLIGHT i_El-“r to stay on Tlzll\llrv clluizcH RD. 2.9 miles
:32. TRINIT¥ cHuRcH Ro becomes 0L1vERs sHoP Ro.
;"'_§'t"§§i“'st``r§i';}``i'{t ``t‘o’oo"on=to"i~'il'l``j"l``i§I}l§t]``i{ill¥§ioalii§=lll§_"Eo``nati``n“o“e'to ”f'o'llo'ii``vw
" n¢’l\'>'.ii ~>'M$\'?'»_»'R¢§'».lw~li(~?-o-r-¢t~i~g~m~snl§9»|¢|~?»:.¢}3¢;``~¢' ' vi\-§¢ 1»-<¢'=.'4 ~M» -'¢¢~¢'1'.'¢\::- :\ \<.';»\v~f»'¢'¢'¢:‘i¢¢»\'..'~\l\--'s-~}» l.;-}\;'¢' -i¢¢;¢;a>\¢x¢~¢``|r';¢{|;/x``\-:-\¢ r 1 \
Turn SL!GHT RIGHT onto Mo-4 s/Mo-z s/Louis t c-ioLDSTEIN liwY.
`` “ a‘ff___¢_s>r)ii:~_ezs_i_e_tstlevi_iie:zz_
~¢-»_ _ .q_¢_-_».e_.-,.i
z»-<\_\-»».' ~-.-_ ~=\»\
3.4 miles
16.0 miles
5.3 miles
0.1 miles
'35. Turn LEFT onto W END BLVD.
.=Ls. Turn RIGHT onto Mo-765/s1' l_EoNARo Ro. 1.3 miles
37. Turn LEF|' onto CALVERT BEACH RD. 0.7 miles
L end at 1248 calvert Beaeh R¢l, saint Leonard, Ml) mess-2321 us
"]/\/€oi/e/ L/ ]>/‘?(j/(
2/@§5 l(,zé 15’*5°'€°
http://wvvw.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?d0=prt&mo=ma& 1 ex= 1 &src'-'maps&un=m&go= 1 &2ex=. ..
‘i’age 2 of 2
5/13/2004
.¢»...~o...$
:\/fapQ\}¢Sf= @ei§é\a;©irf€\ti¢oosoh>rs&s-'§n@a Doouniem 2 Fileo 07/06/04 age 11 of 11 Pagelo 15Page 1 of 2
"L
Turn to a tcstod, behavioral
§
§ Send ``Lo_Printg_r Back To D_i_recgo_ns approach designedwfi,nd §
the one you'll be happiest '
z:::::,;.“:: \-'tv~f<»»oer.
/ " --~'“"``*
33904-4823 US " "
End: 1248 Ca|vert Beach Rd
Saint Leonard, MD
20685-2821 US
Distance: 1042.59 mi|es>( 15 ?~'O%S
Total Estimated Time: 17 hours, 52 minutes ",``l';" "'**"!5``#"-"'* l*-'!'F-"‘
s \.'n."»’1.=»-=~¢»¢'-.~:.»=4*=1 »»-.'»» -_-_ r» n s .:e``.-.r -¢ .,.t a_» -»~¢., -:. a'-< -.~ i\'» \'.-.-- -, '...-.~»:.\'¢.-_.S'y.-.,.>:-.¢.-~.g n ~ »¢ o». '¢. .-.'.ia
Start out going North on SE 1ST PL toward SE 3STH ST.
O.2 miles
Turn RIGHT onto SE 35TH ST. 0.1 miles
Turn LEl-T onto SE ZND PL. O.2 miles
Turn LEFT onto SE 4TH AVE. 0.1 miles
Turn RIG T onto SE 33RD TER. <0.1 miles
. Turn RIGHT onto SE 4TH PL. 0.1 miles
TUrr'l LEFI' Ol'lfIO SE 34TH TER. 0.5 |Tlil€$
TU|’|’\ LEFT OMO COUNTRY CLUB BLVD_. 1.2 mil€$
.-.-~.'..;»~.»....i.so-.......-......l.~.»t..,~a:..;».'.=».-¢. ...1»..-,.1:.',.ri,..=.-.,.;e.-;-:....= .- ..--'.i.'-; .¢..'.'~,'.',s»'.'.'»~..-.-. -,-.;t-; w.-, ;, ...~1..»_ m .=...;..=..\.:;.'.~_,-.._.--<.,: , _.-, o a..,'.\q -.'.-1-
Turn RIGHT onto VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY/CR-884 E. 0.7 miles
ljfljf’jllf’jfellfff“fe’lfffjl; 11ifffjff¢;f§ff?ijjifi§é
_. 11. Stay straight to go onto VETERANS MEMORIAL PKWY/CR-884 E. <0.1 miles
\.., g ».,;e_.<,..¢o.- 4 ¢ »\o¢.oo >.¢.
mm L``E'E``i"``<§§§=ro"iSéL"i=»i'/§ESS‘i§f{}i§``§}E§l逧i\f"€on§}}i§§``{§§"``Eoif$n"”o’i§f'" 6 m"``es
10.4 miles
13. Turn LEr-"r onto N TAMIAMI TRL/FL-45 N/us-41 N.
s n a{ m ¢ »,; . . ¢ ,¢ v \ ,-. \. vi _ »¢...x s<~.z vs'~i'\\'»» s c. n s ;-z».:``\``¢ _\
¢¢``¢»:..»_»»¢r-u».\»¢¢» , ~ »-.\ \~\.n.w ..-.._.s:s»,. .
__ 14. Turn SLIGHT RIGHT onto TUCKERS GRADE/CR-762 E. 1.1 miles
t 15. Turn LEFT. <0.1 miles
_ 16. Merge onto I-75 N toward TAMPA. 226.1 miles
... .".¢,_.,...r-»s_z>¢_,..\,.\e»e-a~'¢ <,'¢».1».-1..¢».\\.r_\¢;,»-.¢=»,,,o..__ ._,_~¢,‘, ¢. . ,, .
" 17. Take the SR-121 N exlt- exit number 382- toward GAINESVILLE. O.2 miles
1°' Turn LEi-'r onto FL~121 N/sw w1LL1sT0N Ro. continue to follow sw 3'7 "‘"es
http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=prt&mo=ma&1ex=l&src=maps&un=m&go=l&Zex=... 5/13/2004
stated that "[i]t is the position of the [Navy] that the DFAS response to Senator Nelson adequately
and completely addresses all of the substantive issues raised by Mr. Crane regarding his salary
overpayment and his claim should be disallowed." Compl. Ex. 4, at l.
On January 25, 2010, Mr. Crane responded that DFAS wrongfully applied his lump sum
annual leave towards the balance he owed for wage overpayments. Compl. Ex. 3, at 3.
On November l5, 2012, OPM issued a decision denying Mr. Crane’s claim, finding that
he had failed to establish that "DFAS calculated his salary overpayment incorrectly." Compl. Ex.
3, at 5.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
On April 29, 2015, Mr. Bryan O. Crane ("Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint ("Compl.") in the
United States Court of Federal Claims, under 28 U.S.C. § 26724 and the Maryland Wage Payment
and Collection Law,5 alleging: $49,605.60 for unpaid "vacation and sick pay;" $37,284. l 8 for "lost
investment income from unpaid vacation pay;" $18,540.05 for "lost investment income from
unpaid sick pay;" $l,809.36 for unreimbursed travel expenses; and $5,880.42 for "lost investment
income from unreimbursed travel expenses." Compl. at l. The Complaint also seeks $5,000,000
for "physical and mental damages." Compl. at l7-l8.
On June 29, 2015 , the Government filed a Motion To Dismiss ("Gov’t Mot."), pursuant to
Rules l2(b)(l) and l2(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC").
On January 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Response ("Pl. Resp."). On February l6, 2016, the
Govemment filed a Reply ("Gov’t Reply").
4 Section 2672;fthe Federal Tort Claims Act provides:
The head of each Federal agency or his designee ... may consider, ascertain, adjust,
determine, compromise, and settle any claim for money damages against the United
States for. . . loss of property. . . under circumstances where the United States, if a
private person, would be liable to claimant in accordance with the law of the place
where the act or omission occurred.
28 U.S.C. § 2672.
5 Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, in relevant part, provides:
Notwithstanding any remedy available under § 3-507 of this subtitle, if an employer
fails to pay an employee in accordance with § 3-502 or § 3-505 of this subtitle, after
2 weeks have elapsed from the date on which the employer is required to have paid
the wages, the employee may bring an action against the employer to recover the
unpaid wages.
Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-507.2(a) (2008 Repl. Vol., 2010 Supp.).
COURT EXHIBIT B
Case 2:O4-cv-O0363-.JES$SPC Document 1' Fi|ed 07/06/04 )Page 1 of 4 Page|D 1
UNlTED STATES DISTR|CT COJ.URT
M|DDLE DlSTRlCT OF FLOR|DA
FORT MYERS D|V|S|ON
BRvAN o. cRANE, _g g
Piaanrifr, wmata _g
v. case No. 2:o4-cv 1 §§§;ié-F'Fttt-._M\'§§
NAvAi. AiR svs'rEMs coMMANo,
Defendant.
l
NOT|CE OF REMOVAL
The Naval Air Systems Command, Department of the Navy, United States
Department of Defense, an agency of the United States of America, by and through the
United States Attorney for the Midd|e District of Fiorida and the undersigned Assistant
United States Attorney, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a)(1) and 1446, hereby removes
this action from the County Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of F|orida, in and for
Lee County, F|orida, to the United States District Court for the Midd|e District of F|orida.
Fort Myers Division. The grounds for this removal are as fol|ows:
1. On or about May 28, 2004, the P|aintiff filed a statement of claim initiating
a civil action captioned Bryan O. Crane v. Naval Air Systems Command, Case No. 04 -
SC - 002442, County Court, Twentieth ..ludicial Circuit, in and for Lee County, F|orida.
2. Copies of the summons and statement of claim and all other process,
p|eadings, orders and papers required by Rule 4.02(b) of the Rules of the United States
District Court for the Midd|e District of F|orida, are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as composite Exhibit 1.
3. The statement of claim alleges that the P|aintiff is entitled to per diem
payments and reimbursement for mileage in connection for his return to work pursuant
to an agreement with the Naval Air Systems Command in connection with his claim for
handicap related workplace accommodations.
4. Title 28, United States Code, Section 1442(a)(1), permits removal of any
civil action commenced in a local court against "[t]he United States or any agency
~c-.¢\,; u-. »
Case 2:O4-cv-O0363-.JES)-SPC Document 1 Filed 07/06/04 Page 2 of 4 PagelD 2
l
Notice of Removal Page 2
Case No. 2:04-CV- -FTM-29 ``
thereof...for any act under color of such ofHce." This action is against the Nava|
Air Systems Command for official actions of the Nava| Air Systems Command, and is
thus removable under section 1442(a)(1). Among the defenses to be asserted by the
Naval Air Systems Command will be sovereign immunity, lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
5. This Notice is filed within the time required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1446(b).
6. A copy of this Notice of Removal has also been Hled or caused to be filed
this date with the Clerk of the Court of Lee County as required by law.
7. Nothing herein shall be construed to waive any defense available to the
United States, including its agencies, officers or emp|oyees. Nothing herein constitutes
an admission that this Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of any claim asserted
against the United States, including its agencies, ofhcers or employees. lndeed, the
United States, including its agencies, officers and employees hereby expressly reserve
all defenses to this action, including but not limited to jurisdictional defenses.
Respectfully submitted,
PAUL l. PEREZ
Assistant Unit d States Attomey
Florida Bar No. 913431
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
Telephone: (239) 461 -2200
Facsimile: (239)461-2219
Case 2:04-cv-0O363-JES$-SPC Document 1 Fi|ed 07/06/04 ) Page 3 of 4 Page|D 3
Notice of Removal Page 3
Case No. 2:04-CV- -FTM-29
CERT|F|CATE OF SERV|CE
_ !§raz``r@f;f‘,? g ``_r``_f§f§" ``§fjc_aii-$ £``:oQ§»~j_Qf-"'if'i§"f£)?'ego'i§zgf has :b@@r"i provided by First C|ass
i-.-.f.$. £»>_§a_fi am ti)$iz=z-* day .czf .,%¢.il_y,___-E~B€.k&, in th§. fr;~§i:ofv.rirz'_c';:
w b
Brjwan G,,-._Gr§rie
2§25“ E§Qf'cth £*;r‘é&hl;$c``=:
``S.,aijni Jamf§z».s``:»*~.’l?§'§g 'F``~i:-:Y'~i§a 3-?~9£§6
'T"ei,e»_§:r_h§nel `` -} 2§§_35-".?4»"``~¥.$
._-\
Assistant United States Attorney
;. ~u=“.‘-a~ »``» .»-;; ,g``.;_,- c ..9,..._.
J""5``@%{3€°YUH-c\iUU§'@§T53|§§$§F°C°°UB<:Dment' 1 FiléUWF®B/O¢l §Page``r'll%f lf-Pna§gelD"lf'o
'Eonu 2s1-4 . 1
mnmcoum'vcovn'ror¢ruz
umwa c.ezcouwrv.n.omn¢suu.l.cx.nnasmvxsmu
,¢ 'i~»-..._;
2625 z 3m Avz§r;z ' `` `` ~W”""""``~""'°”'” ...:...§......._..,,...“_._,,......
' _,,,__,,_,,_,``,,.__._c_,___wc_,,. . - _ . - __
amc ama cx'rv. rn aassL __*___M_`` _ `` n"§§"mzyuzh Hm“ "“" ”" "°"”'“‘°”" "
*% w =aa-.zsz§,..,....*...``....w.._w.,.._._...g “""°' °" ”°T'°’° '% ' % "
.) - - cm N°‘ . - . nw -»~v-'-¢--¢r.-v-e¢ .»:»'-=_» -,
vs- Rst'cr mrhi»No Iauul¢ln¢uy aqua-ig
naval Air systems ¢om:and
s'r».us os= m.omu». __ nance 10 mnozsm~xnmtscs>
mm l l gm
8 " =#»;wi# "‘N "Tw* ¢~@¢``Y"@z’,zm‘°§@@aw¢m¢:.;vz»emy==»m»+d-
w:w,_..,.; ~wvf?___ -_ ma way .ww-mcs»z-:zzm
1 *Y~ .2:~§¢;2_!=' nn nunn A'r nm mm no No'r same wmvcssr.s -
mmnuvc"°znso~ oh n"v xr'ronm:v
Aoo¢puncimmuyb=r=xzcsmledacuvscamufzherrlalcom bymonio¢ufmoearpomionormyanplaye¢nnxorhadmwlungbym
odcel'cfdvcuvpon!ivn-Wrinen ¢w\ori:asiunmonhchrnug!cttnduc?n:-tlinl€cmfwmo¢.
Tbc ¢ld?¢od\n¢(¢) must appear in court on she date sp¢ci¢’\¢d in order m avoid a Ded'aull Judgm¢n\. Th¢ pluinci!£(s) mus\ app¢ar w avoid having
thc usc dimlnod fur lac.kuf``pruswulion. A wriue=n MO'!‘|ON or ANS\-'Ekto the Cnun by thc phin|.i£l'(¢) or \h= dcfen¢b\€(¢) ¢h\ll nm acme nw
unusual appearance of a party or iu accuracy at cho PR£-TRIAI. CONFI~ZR.ENCE``.. 111¢ dan: and/or lime of du Pro-Trhl Cunt'aeuce CANNOT b¢
rescheduled without pad due and prior noun mrov\l.
e)£w'__¥:*:»§’ézat'--f.‘*m£bwm;_is w ~yM-"¢z:wzw@ w dam-mine \1‘ you admin nn ar pan »ru»¢ uuam, m mann nn com m
u£'§i~¢=¢§#% mi w wi . `` fbr‘i"駧i '¥‘:Fihr=¢a'xsn cannot bo rcso\vcd as Lh= Pr=-Tri¢\ Confur¢nu¢. Yoa or your auom¢y
w éiv-' w mm sw mw »sw. -z_»m w wfr¢aw
;.¢q»._~.~,¢zuzmm.r;_»mw' _w= xha mm m gm m ada*%z°§¢zm erye£i.»- m was ``mqA;-¢
w wm ma hz=sz'-iz'-@g~rfv'-_rak»=s w~rw .#¢='¢ vs ``¢;¥:_szi' div wzvwww€ 31
§§ wm nw m m§g¢r;-zhe-aa¢oa| ¢rlal o!'dw cue. and the uu.om¢y mus¢ have v.ho authorization to
SN!!¢ ar his client must he pi'¢:smt. ``
lfyouodmizdxceomoluim.bucdulronddldmlduwwpqy,youmuaeom¢mdmmumcimnnmwuw\h=ComLd¢Ca\»-cm\yoruw nor
mmweapaymcnt plan and withhold !udgum\ ux Bx¢cu\im ofl»¢vy-
m_vmm zg»z~ §;;€v»=.v_; m saw wide r_¥$s; w.§¥ie- suit in wy-.@r several plaza us sims b¢low.
;E§~gg¢'v;»;;_~, _qn_etl in pi%sa§':_@_¢dm one of ~$<``€S“s=fa’zd¢!z¢hz§ ¥z.'i;t§``€e rig|u m request that thc case be
w :Mz;@m mem ga w edwin #ff§v‘;¢ K”MWM-.-*? mm m mma imm z) lf sul\ 1¢
_ _ _ _ '_~ " z-:;g.¢-j‘£:e_ a__l_y;zgéaa_-'~afh=m~ziwkz.q‘~midcs: 31 lfdm suic is m recover property or 10 forums a llm. when
13 ii §§ ’W!Ia¢@¢¢~. the -rl'sa:.-S:d sn’x":-~mée;m‘:_-)si¢;``= _S) Whcm my umc or mom of the d¢fcndonrfs) sued ruidcs; 65 Any
' §www is z m~.~s@°wex-._'°H m #!:v=‘», ?é'¢‘»'``~$i@ =z=’w¢w\\ v w '»'\'v'¢ 'J\- wh \v=y he Hl¢d. umw v»=nv¢ liu in ¢h»=
pouncy where payment is lnadc.
l[ you as a d¢{¢ndg¢u(¢) b¢li¢ve the ph\i\\tim:| his/haw nut sued in unc of \hcsc correct plu¢os. you must appear on your court dale and ond|y
mgm g ¢nm£q» q you may m¢ a wm rTEN rcqucs\ for Lr:msfer, ln affldavil rbrm Lsworn under uarh) "'“h m C°“*\ l¢=v#n ¢W# lrivr w y¢ur f'lr=l\
cum due md sand a copy w d\e plnincl!¥(s) ur plolnt|{f{s) ltwl‘l'\¢=¥-
A wpy \'»f'ihb ;¢&!.?"¥I£R§m``;§¥mli-
DATBI> \¢_Ww!!‘é§ym¢.?§ndzi:zm'§lis;_q____
lNl'Ol'I'ANI' !NFORRIAT!BN-READ CAREFULLY
ERING 'I'BIS NO‘I'ICEWITH YOU A'l' A.I..I.'I.``MB
'*11'- -mm»i_ ': 'M_-SMM_ f. m Mvv=v.wlh=
" .m»haasza_#am§¥slocaudacm:ue _"'W_Ju_llih£>ar>m.';u?onuuvo¢svean_
_§ '__'_'_'__"»wm_wvwaym~mw.@mwwwwq.dwso¢yownuuww ' _ zucuwn;wyou»¢»m=¢on;
w z»mmsw_€.-‘ '»- __
COURT EXHIBIT C
Case 2:04-cv-OO363-JES-SPC Document 32 Fi|ed 01/20/05 Page 1 of 2 PagelD 152
Case 2:O4-cv-O0363-JES-SPC Document 32 Fi|ed 01/20/05 Page 2 of 2 Page|D 153
MStates District Judge
III. DISCUSSION.
A. Jurisdiction.
The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491, "to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the
Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any
express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in
cases not sounding in tort." 28 U.S.C. § l491(a)(l). The Tucker Act, however, is "a jurisdictional
statute; it does not create any substantive right enforceable against the United States for money
damages . . . [T]he Act merely confers jurisdiction upon [the United States Court of Federal
Claims] whenever the substantive right exists." United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 398 (1976).
To pursue a substantive right under the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify and plead an
independent contractual relationship, constitutional provision, federal statute, and/or executive
agency regulation that provides a substantive right to money damages. See Todd v. United States,
386 F.3d l09l, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[J]urisdiction under the Tucker Act requires the litigant to
identify a substantive right for money damages against the United States separate from the Tucker
Act[.]"); see also Fz``sher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("The
Tucker Act . . . does not create a substantive cause of action; . . . a plaintiff must identify a separate
source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages. . . . [T]hat source must be
‘money-mandating."’). Specifically, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the source of substantive
law upon which he relies "can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal
Government[.]" Testcm, 424 U.S. at 400. And, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,
846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[O]nce the [trial] court’s subject matter jurisdiction [is] put
in question . . . [the plaintiff] bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence.").
B. Standard Of Review For Pr0 Se Litigants.
Pro se plaintiffs’ pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those of litigants
represented by counsel. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding that pro se
complaints, "however inartfully pleaded," are held to "less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by 1awyers"). This court traditionally examines the record "to see if [a pro se]
plaintiff has a cause of action somewhere displayed." Ruderer v. United Staz‘es, 188 Cl. Ct. 456,
468 (1969). Nevertheless, while the court may excuse ambiguities in a pro se plaintiff’ s complaint,
the court "does not excuse [a pro se complaint’s] failures." Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795,
799 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
C. 'I``he Government’s June 29, 2015 Motion T0 Dismiss.
The court is cognizant of its obligation liberally to construe a pro se plaintiff s pleadings.
See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (holding that a "pro se document is to be liberally
construed"). But, pro se plaintiffs must still “comply with the applicable rules of procedural and
substantive law." Walsh v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 539, 541 (1983).
1. Whether The Court Has Jurisdicti0n T0 Adjudicate The Claims
Alleged In The April 29, 2015 Complaint.
a. The G0vernment’s Argument.
The Govemment argues that the court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims
alleged in the April 29, 2015 Complaint regarding violations of 28 U.S.C. § 2672 and request for
physical and mental damages, because the court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate tort
claims. Gov’t Mot. at 6, 8. ln addition, the claim regarding violations of the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law should be dismissed, because they exceed the court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. Gov’t Mot. at 6. As for Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid sick leave and unreimbursed
travel expenses, they are barred by the statute of limitations, because the April 29, 2015 Complaint
was filed twelve years after his claims for unpaid sick leave and unreimbursed travel expenses
accrued in February 2003. Gov’t Mot. at 7. Finally, claims for loss of future profits or missed
opportunities for investment growth are not recoverable in these circumstances. Gov’t Mot. at 8.
b. Plaintiff’s Response.
Plaintiff responds that he did not intend to file this case relying on Maryland law, but in a
prior case the Government stated the proper venue was the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Pl. Resp. at l-2 (citing Crane v. Naval Air Systerns Command, 2:04-CV-363-FTM-29SPC (D. Fl.
2005).6 ln addition, Plaintiff argues that there is no statute of limitations on wage issues and cites
28 U.S.C. § 2674 for the proposition that Plaintiff is seeking damages that the court can award
since they are not punitive damages. Pl. Resp. at 2-3.
c. The Court’s Resolution.
Whether The Court Has Jurisdicti0n T0 Adjudicate Tort
Claims.
The April 29, 2015 Complaint cites 28 U.S.C. § 2672 as authorizing the head of any Federal
agency to "consider, ascertain, adjust, determine, compromise, and settle any claim for money
damages against the United States for injury or loss of property . . . caused by the negligent or
wrongful act . . . of any employee of the agency." 28 U.S.C. § 2672. But, that statute concerns
tort claims. lt is well-established that the United States Court of Federal Claims does not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate tort claims, because the Tucker Act expressly withdraws those claims
from the scope of the court’s jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § l49l(a)(l) ("The United States Court
of Federal Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against the United
States . . . in cases not sounding in tort." (emphasis added)); see also Keene Corp. v. United States,
508 U.S. 200, 214 (1993) ("[T]ort cases are outside the jurisdiction of the [United States] Court of
Federal Claims."). Likewise, the United States Court of Federal Claims cannot adjudicate a claim
for "physical and mental damages," that is also founded in tort. See Garner v. United States, 230
6 On May 28, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the County Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit In and For Lee County, Florida. Court Exhibit A. On July 6, 2004, that case was
removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Court Exhibit B.
On January 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Dismiss Without Prejudice. Court Exhibit C.
Ct. Cl. 941, 943 (1982) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491) ("[R]elief for mental distress and psychological
damage is founded in tort.").
For these reasons, the court must dismiss the tort claims alleged in the April 29, 2015
Complaint.
;':1"'1``-; Whether The Court Has Jurisdicti0n T0 Adjudicate
State Law Claims.
The April 29, 2015 Complaint seeks relief under the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law. Compl. at 1. The Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law is a part of the
Maryland Labor and Employment state laws that set forth the rights by which Maryland employees
receive wages. See Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-507.2(a) (2008 Repl. Vol., 2010 Supp.).
Claims founded on state law, however, exceed the scope of jurisdiction of the United States Court
of Federal Claims. See Souders v. Soulh Carolina Pub. Serv. Auth., 497 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) ("Claims founded on state law are also outside the scope of the limited jurisdiction of
the [United States] Court of Federal Claims.").
For these reasons, the court must dismiss the claim alleged under the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law requested by the April 29, 2015 Complaint.
'"i°i``i. Whether The April 29, 2015 C0mplaint’s Claim F0r
Unpaid Sick Leave And Unreimbursed Travel Are
Barred By The Statute Of Limitati0ns.
The April 29, 2015 Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to unpaid sick leave, as of
February 28, 2003, and unreimbursed travel expenses that occurred on February 3, 2003. Compl.
at 16-17. Section 2501 of the Tucker Act provides that "[e]very claim of which the United States
Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed within
six years after such claim first accrues." 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The United States Supreme Court has
interpreted this statute as setting "jurisdictional limits" and is not subject to equitable tolling. See
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 134 (2008). Accordingly, the court
cannot adjudicate claims that accrued outside the limitations period, "even if jurisdiction were
otherwise proper." Wilder v. United States, 277 F. App’x 999, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirrning
dismissal of payment as time-barred under Section 2501 where the plaintiff s claim accrued ten
years before the Complaint was filed.). lt is well-established that a claim "accrues as soon as all
events have occurred that are necessary to enable the plaintiff to bring suit, z``.e., when ‘all events
have occurred to fix the Govemment’s alleged liability."’ Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d
1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The claims for unpaid sick leave and unreimbursed travel
expenses in this case accrued in February 2003, when the events occurred that fixed the
Government’s alleged liability.7 Compl. at 1, 9, 16, 17. The Complaint in this case was not filed
7 The April 2015 -ffomplaint alleges that Plaintiff did not file a claim for unpaid sick
leave at the agency level or at OPM, as fol1ows:
Since Plaintiff was unable to obtain vacation pay owed to him, Plaintiff did not bother to
pursue a claim for sick leave owed to him, until now, Plaintiff felt adding the sick leave
6
until April 2015, over twelve years after the claims for unpaid sick leave and unreimbursed travel
expenses accrued.
F or these reasons, the court must dismiss Plaintiff’ s claims for unpaid sick leave and unpaid
travel expenses alleged in the April 29, 2015 Complaint as barred by the six-year statute of
lirnitations.s
iv_;,; Whether The C0urt Has Jurisdicti0n T0 Award Lost
Investment Inc0me.
The April 29, 2015 Complaint seeks an award of lost investment income on his unpaid
vacation time, sick leave, and unreimbursed travel expenses. Compl. at 17~18. Plaintiff argues
that the court has jurisdiction to make such an award, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2674, because these
are not punitive damages. Compl. at 17-l8. However, consequential damages, damages for the
loss of future profits, or "lost investment income" are not recoverable, because they are too remote
or speculative to qualify as compensable damages. See Solar Turbines, Inc. v. United States, 16
Cl. Ct. 304, 316 (1989) ("[Recoverable damages] . . . do not include damages that remotely or
consequently resulted from the breach, z``. e., damages that were too remote or speculative to qualify
as compensable damages."); see also Olin Jones Sand Co. v. Um'tea’ States, 225 Ct. Cl. 741, 744
(1980)) (observing that future profits rely on speculative and remote factors and cannot be
rewarded).
For these reasons, the court must dismiss the claims for lost investment income alleged in
the April 29, 2015 Complaint.
issue to his claim was pointless, since Employer/DFAS/DON/OPM could not get his
vacation claim straight, Plaintiff seemed it would only serve to further confuse them and
accomplish nothing.
Compl. at 9.
8 Even if Plaintiff were entitled to unpaid sick leave and unreimbursed travel expenses as
of the date of his retirement, on July 3, 2006, those claims would still be barred by the six-year
statute of limitations, because he filed the April 29, 2015 Complaint almost nine years after
Plaintiff’s retirement.
IV. CONCLUSION.
F0r these reasons, the Government’s June 29, 2015, Motion to Dismiss is granted See
RCFC 12(b)(1). The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss the April 29, 2015 Cornplaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SUS!A'N G. RADEN
Judge
COURT EXHIBIT A
_ case 2:04-<;\/-o0363-JEs)sPc oocu``rnenr 2" Filed 07/06/04 )Page 1 of 11 Pagelo 5
page 1 ofz
Noti'ce to Appear for Pre-trial Conference
IN THE COUN'I``Y COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CaSe NO.;__
BRY_AN 0 CRANE _ `` mm-INH*_HWH_»H“
“-»---=-~--_-~'\=-»- » »-~-»~_--~»\-»_=---»-»-----»~-~---¢-»-_~»-1-»-»¢- ¢-_»_¢.-- ~ -._»-_-_»._.......,_...=.....1_=.._»......._,.¢#. ._,:
i.fd,,.f§av.‘,’§’z[f,‘§,,’i, F,i,,,,,, ,_ 11111111111 reiterate
Say,"_ laws €_I.?.za.€l~._§§e§§l._,.____t_.,,tl__.__-__wa rolls __,r,_,.__,_,,_t...__l.__,;t.,.‘f§;l,..¢,,K_:a-§,E~._m,
1;5_1_§3_)1_93§__4#_*_¢5239) 233-744_6 _H _ _ ;r. *"'¢``--'*
_ _ _ l_....,w..__ _t_.,..r_,,., l_._.l__zm.r_,``_t_iff(s)_ 1 ,lr._.._,,,....l..,._s._...,_u..,_.,.,.l_.t.___,_,r_s,_ ,.,.,2 ____
vs. 1390
_¥i~zx§ll.£é.i.£_.t§._¥s_§s;“§.,§az:m,te.§e_.__._.__,.,___,,l.,___,_,_,._._,._. _,,,t.,_»__.._,,_._,_ll_,.,_s,.l,,_l__ _- m,,,______,s__w,,__ww
,,..-_,.,-.,..l,,,.,,lt,._..f_,..,.,..,__.,.-..__,._,;,l__,_w._,a,_"_l_rl_,,r_,,r___l,op.__‘ ,,,,__,,.tq__,.__.__,,_,-__ ____,,,_.._w.,¢,___.-,_,__,,,_,,_~__,____§}';_-_,
e.zaz.<.=tee.a»_z_avtlfz.l erwin rlllt.,,_olf_,tlltrc,,l_.,to_ol,t_tt_o__, t o
b,r_._._Ss'rY.%Ba'z'.,§.§_~?ré.r£._.._,T- S.a@_______?L_C*=' D€P“fv Dirs-C'f v»~¢»~»»l-a;§aaa@:'z:,i§»;,.f.l...~,.,_.l,…,l .....
_I.‘i.£.?.&*l?£&.‘fs_il?.££_i§?,§§,§_‘ilr_l.h.llr__~w_,._-. ____1-_,,___ _,_,,.- _ 1,_.-_1,.1,.,_,- ..__,,.1 ll., t.,._,._,_.__‘§§f__._,_l,._.__. _.M W_'._
D en nt s _ `` 7
ef da () zg_l§hli_ ``/ l
You are hereby notified that the plaintiff has made a claim and is requesting judgment against you in the
sum of __ l_.' 999 ~ 36 _ mmmm =_;_____M as shown by the following Statement of`` Claim, plus court costs.
The Court will hold a Pre-trial Conference on this claim on the __M_ day of '
atw. Lee County Justice Center, in Courtroom 'ii' - 5th Floor, located at '1700 Monroe Street l ort Myers, Florida.'
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT MUST APPEAR. You should bring any receipts or other written
documents with you for this pretrial.
lf you desire to file any counterclaim or set-off to plaintiffs said claim, it must be filed with the Clerk of Courts
by you or by your attorney in writing at least five(5) days prior to the above date set for pretrial of said claim.
You may come -tyfifth. ar ¥s'_'='iti§tot:i; jan a_i-,f_esx_“-n;;é§, party i; _;_qz.'esente:i. ``l:zj;$ :C,T:eur;,ae'_l_sitali
conference by the searles watt ev_.:g'ae'»ts'ta treatise the ao_zaaz iz:i_al_ rif are -.c-a.::se, A;:za- .
=a;x``;t.szz"'izat_ii,:'=f__zl-e a~r»~;f¥_ §s:-¢}.i»zizz*~'.zz§'_§'_z’_ 'i_:a_ai't _ _ __ __ _§r- .-
' ~
_State_mezz-t=nf f‘l_‘_l’ai‘zzt' _ -
Plaintiff hereby declares £tv,_.;,za‘.'e_i``af':``;xi;t_l;=;_r:':'; owes plaintiff the sain atf _ .a~“¥"'i``i»‘in
result of the following facts to wit:
I accepted a return to work agreement which included specific stipulations. 1 was forced
to report for work in E‘ebruary 2003 prior to my employer fullfilling any agreed upon
stipulations. Per our aqreement, all ergonomic accommodations were to be in place when I
reported. None of the ergonomic accommodations were in place and would r§t§.?be$jf'for an
51 ``
indeterminent amount of time. The Department of Labor, Office of Wor}".-_¢__:§§?``*"':&-'C
\
_C;zl’a}~£§:znsation
agreed that my employer was wrong and reinstated my full benefits x,rfz‘-:f-.-¢. 1
date I left. I am requesting the court award me with reimbursement fo
diem living allowance calculated at the 2003 E'ederal rates.
('7
E)-I