U.S. Code
»
Title 28
» Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 171— TORT CLAIMS PROCEDURE
28 U.S.C. § 2675
Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
(a) An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United States for money damages for injury or loss of property or personal injury or death 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, unless the claimant shall have first presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make final disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial of the claim for purposes of this section. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to such claims as may be asserted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by third party complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim.(b) Action under this section shall not be instituted for any sum in excess of the amount of the claim presented to the federal agency, except where the increased amount is based upon newly discovered evidence not reasonably discoverable at the time of presenting the claim to the federal agency, or upon allegation and proof of intervening facts, relating to the amount of the claim.(c) Disposition of any claim by the Attorney General or other head of a federal agency shall not be competent evidence of liability or amount of damages.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 983; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 126, 63 Stat. 107; Pub. L. 89–506, § 2, July 18, 1966, 80 Stat. 306.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 ActBased on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 931(b) (Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, § 410(b), 60 Stat. 844).
Section constitutes all of section 931(b), except the first sentence, of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed. The remainder of such section 931(b) is incorporated in section 2677 of this title.
Changes were made in phraseology.
1949 ActThis section corrects a typographical error in section 2675(b) of title 28, U.S.C.
Editorial NotesReferences in TextThe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (a), are set out in the Appendix to this title.
Amendments1966—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 89–506, § 2(a), required that all administrative claims be filed with the agency or department and finally denied by the agency and sent by certified or registered mail prior to the filing of a court action against the United States, provided that the claimant be given the option of considering the claim to have been denied if the agency fails to make final disposition of the claim within six months of presentation of the claim to the agency, and provided that the requirements of the subsection would not apply to claims asserted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by third party complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–506, § 2(b), struck out provisions under which a claimant could, upon 15 days written notice, withdraw a claim from the agency and institute an action thereon.
1949—Subsec. (b). Act May 24, 1949, substituted “section” for “subsection”.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1966 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 89–506 applicable to claims accruing six months or more after July 18, 1966, see section 10 of Pub. L. 89–506, set out as a note under section 2672 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Kwai Wong v. David Beebe (2013)
ca9 · cites it 30×
“Statutory Background The FTCA contains three timing rules that govern when a plaintiff may file a claim against the United States in the district court: First, 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a) establishes an administrative exhaustion requirement, which states that “[a]n action shall not be…”
Mader v. United States (2011)
ca8 · cites it 7×
“In this appeal concerning the Federal Tort Claims Act, we determine whether a purported personal representative may invoke the adjudicatory capacity, that is, the subject-matter jurisdiction of a United States District Court on behalf of statutory beneficiaries if, under 28…”
Charles Barnett v. Okeechobee Hospital (2002)
ca11 · cites it 9×
“1 The district court dismissed Barnett’s complaint, concluding that Barnett failed to comply with the notice requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). In this appeal, he challenges the court’s conclusion.”
Santos Ex Rel. Beato v. United States (2009)
ca3 · cites it 6×
“28 U.S.C. § 2675 (a). [4] Santos did not challenge the removal of her case to the District Court or the substitution of parties and, accordingly, she filed the contemplated administrative claim.”
Paula Segura and Ricardo Segura v. State of Iowa (2017)
iowa · cites it 7×
“See 28 U.S.C. § 2675 . Accordingly, federal courts hold “this means [a court] must distinguish between the presentment filing mandated by Section 2675(a) and the settlement procedures of Section 2672.”
VALADEZ-LOPEZ v. Chertoff (2011)
ca9 · cites it 6×
“After six months, having received no response from the agencies as to his administrative claims, he considered the requests to have been deemed denied, see id., and amended his complaint to name the United States as a defendant and allege liability under the FTCA.”
Kelly Copen v. United States (2021)
ca6 · cites it 5×
“The United States then moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Kelly had failed to file a valid tort claim for personal injury because she had not identified a sum certain as required in 28 U.S.C. § 2675 . The United States also argued that Paul…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) — 42 cases
— 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b) — 6 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.