## Facts

- Thurman Conn, a federal inmate in Kentucky, alleged he was designated a youth offender but housed with adult prisoners.
- In late April 1981, Conn alleged he was assaulted by an adult prisoner and suffered facial injuries.
- Conn alleged prison officials failed to obtain proper medical treatment, and that surgery was later required to re-set facial fractures.
- On November 19, 1982, Conn’s attorney submitted an FTCA administrative claim to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) using Standard Form 95, describing the incident and demanding $52,000.
- The attorney signed the SF-95 as “attorney for Thurman Conn” and stated in accompanying correspondence that Conn’s signature would be provided if required.
- The BOP responded that it would process the claim only upon receipt of either written proof of the attorney’s authority or an SF-95 signed by Conn; later communications indicated no special authorization form was required.
- Conn filed an FTCA action in federal district court; the United States moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for untimeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).
- The district court dismissed for failure to satisfy FTCA administrative presentment; Conn appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an FTCA claim is “presented” under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) when counsel submits an SF-95 on the claimant’s behalf, includes sufficient incident notice and a sum certain, but the claimant does not personally sign and no separate written authorization accompanies counsel’s signature.
2. Whether the FTCA claim or ensuing lawsuit was barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)’s two-year presentment requirement and six-month post-denial filing requirement.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held Conn’s administrative claim was properly presented to the BOP for purposes of § 2675(a).
- The court held the action was not barred by § 2401(b) on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- FTCA presentment under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) is satisfied when the agency receives written notice sufficient to permit investigation and a specific damages demand (“sum certain”), consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 14.2(a).
- A properly completed SF-95 submitted by counsel on behalf of the claimant, identifying the claimant, describing the incident, and stating a sum certain can satisfy presentment even if the claimant did not personally sign, where the submission provides functional notice and an opportunity for administrative resolution.
- For § 2401(b), timely presentment within two years turns on when a legally sufficient claim is presented to the agency; the six-month filing bar depends on a “final denial” as contemplated by the statute, and the government bears the burden to establish the time bar on the record.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that an SF-95 filed by counsel on behalf of an inmate, containing sufficient notice and a sum certain, met the FTCA’s administrative presentment requirement, and that the government had not established that the claim or the resulting suit was untimely under § 2401(b); the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Conn v. United States, 867 F.2d 916 (6th Cir. 1989)