to a certain standard of care, that defendant breached that standard, and that the breach proximately caused plaintiff's injury. In re Sealed Case, 314 U.S. App. D.C. 271, 67 F.3d 965, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1995). The plaintiff's two remaining claims which are viable in this district, (4)(b) and (5), are considered in this context.
1. THE ELEMENT OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM REGARDING DR. WILLIAMS' IMPLYING THAT PLAINTIFF WOULD BE PLEASED WITH THE REPORT
Plaintiff argues in his claim (4)(b) that defendant caused plaintiff to feel despair by first implying that plaintiff would be pleased with Dr. Williams' report and then refusing to allow plaintiff to see the report. Am. Comp. at P 54(g)(ii). As a matter of law, this is not an appropriate claim of medical malpractice, since it was merely a promise which plaintiff concedes was made in good faith by Dr. Williams. Therefore the motion for summary judgment is granted and paragraph 54(g)(ii) of the amended complaint is dismissed.
2. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM REGARDING THE V.A.'S REFUSAL TO RELEASE DR. WILLIAMS' DRAFT REPORT, PUNISHMENT OF DR. WILLIAMS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS TO PLAINTIFF IN ITS CORRESPONDENCE WITH PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff contends in his claim (5)(a) that defendant exacerbated the plaintiff's poor mental state by not delivering Dr. Williams' draft report as promised. Am. Comp. at P 54(h)(i). Defendant argues that "plaintiff's request for documents . . . has no apparent connection with plaintiff's medical treatment and is consequently a highly dubious basis for a medical malpractice claim." Def. Rep. Memo. at 5. The court agrees with defendant that this constituted an administrative decision, and grants summary judgment in favor of defendant on claim (5)(a).
Plaintiff's claim (5)(b) alleges that the V.A. persecuted and punished Dr. Williams after he tried to aid the plaintiff, thereby worsening the plaintiff's mental condition. Am. Comp. at P 54(h)(iii). Claim (5)(b) does not constitute a medical malpractice claim since the action being complained of was an administrative action, not an action taken by plaintiff's doctor. Therefore, this portion of plaintiff's claim is hereby dismissed.
Plaintiff's claim (5)(c) concerns the adverse impact on plaintiff of the correspondence between plaintiff and the V.A. Am. Comp. at P 54(h)(ii). Once more, this set of facts cannot be invoked to support a medical malpractice claim. The correspondence exclusively dealt with plaintiff's Privacy Act and FOIA requests and was undertaken at the V.A.'s bureaucratic level. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is therefore granted on this element of plaintiff's claim.
Defendant's argument that plaintiff did not first present his claim to the appropriate agency fails after an examination of the facts. However, defendant's argument that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in this court because of the VJRA is granted for plaintiff's claim for (3)(b) and (3)(c), found at P 54(e)(ii) and (f) of the amended complaint. Both elements deal with the determination of benefits and not with a medical malpractice claim.
Venue in this jurisdiction is improper for plaintiff's claims (1), (2), (3)(a), (4)(a), and (6), found in paragraphs 54(c), (d), (e)(i), (g)(i), and (b) of the amended complaint, respectively, since the activities which are the basis of these claims transpired in Springfield, Virginia. Therefore, these claims of plaintiff are transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted for the balance of plaintiff's claims, which have no relevancy or pertinence to a medical malpractice claim. Specifically, claims 4(b) and (5), found in paragraphs 54(g)(ii) and (h) of the amended complaint, respectively, are dismissed, as the allegations made by plaintiff have no connection to a medical malpractice claim.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED for paragraph 54 parts (e)(ii) and (f) of the amended complaint;
ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Transfer is GRANTED for paragraphs 54, parts (b), (c), (d), (e)(i), and (g)(i) of the amended complaint; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternate, for Summary Judgment is GRANTED for paragraphs 54(g)(ii) and (h) of the amended complaint.
All claims now having been dismissed except those transferred, this entire case shall now be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Royce C. Lamberth
United States District Judge