Fax Confirmation as Sufficient Proof of FTCA Presentment

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the Fifth Circuit’s landmark decision in Spriggs v. United States, No. 24-30609 (5th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025). In this case, plaintiff‐appellant Perry Spriggs, injured when a U.S. Postal Service vehicle struck his bicycle, sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The critical issue on appeal was whether a fax confirmation sheet—showing “successful transmission” of the standard claim‐presentation form (SF-95) to the correct Postal Service fax number and employee—constituted probative evidence that the agency received the claim, thereby satisfying the FTCA’s mandatory presentment requirement. The Postal Service denied receipt, and the district court dismissed Spriggs’s suit for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction. On appeal, a three‐judge panel vacated that dismissal and remanded, holding that fax confirmation can indeed prove presentment.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit addressed a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge. It first framed the issue: under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), a plaintiff must present a claim to the appropriate federal agency before suing in federal court. Spriggs had faxed his SF-95 and medical records on March 23, 2023, and retained a printed confirmation stating “successful transmission” to the correct number and addressee. The Postal Service produced declarations denying any receipt. The district court granted dismissal, reasoning a fax confirmation was insufficient to show receipt, and held Spriggs’s suit time-barred under the FTCA’s two-year presentment deadline. The Fifth Circuit reversed: distinguishing Barber v. United States, 642 F. App’x 411 (5th Cir. 2016), it ruled that unlike untrackable first-class mail, a fax confirmation reflects an electronic “handshake” and is thus probative of receipt. The court vacated the dismissal and remanded for the district court to reconsider the evidence under the correct legal standard.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981): Established tiers of Rule 12(b)(1) review based on whether the court relies on the complaint, undisputed facts, or disputed facts.
Bailes v. United States, 988 F.2d 1209, 1993 WL 82030 (5th Cir. 1993) (unpublished): Held that a claim “is not presented until received” and that evidence of regular mailing does not prove receipt.
Transco Leasing Corp. v. United States, 896 F.2d 1435 (5th Cir. 1990): Reinforced presentment and timely filing as jurisdictional prerequisites.
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993): Confirmed that FTCA presentment is mandatory before suit.
Cook v. United States, 978 F.2d 164 (5th Cir. 1992): Emphasized that presentment requirements are “minimal” but must be strictly observed.
Life Partners Inc. v. United States, 650 F.3d 1026 (5th Cir. 2011): Articulated FTCA’s purpose—expedited settlement and avoiding unnecessary litigation.
Atorie Air, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Admin., 942 F.2d 954 (5th Cir. 1991): Held that FTCA jurisdictional prerequisites must be strictly construed in favor of the United States.
Barber v. United States, 642 F. App’x 411 (5th Cir. 2016) (unpublished): Declined to treat an affidavit of untrackable first-class mailing as proof of receipt.
Laouini v. CLM Freight Lines, Inc., 586 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2009): Described the reliability of fax confirmations as evidence of successful electronic transmission.
Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 2023 WL 9105545 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2023), and Powell v. Matthew, 2018 WL 1188531 (W.D. La. Mar. 6, 2018): District courts finding Postal Service tracking and fax‐confirmation data probative of receipt.
Wheeler v. United States, 571 F. App’x 504 (8th Cir. 2014): Upheld a district court’s factual finding that an incorrectly addressed fax was not received.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Jurisdictional Prerequisite: The FTCA bars suit until a claimant presents “a claim ... to the appropriate Federal agency” and the agency denies it or six months elapse. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2675(a), 2401(b). Presentment is thus jurisdictional and strictly construed.
Method of Presentment: The statute is silent on the form of submission; regulations deem a claim presented “when the U.S. Postal Service receives … an executed Standard Form 95 or other written notification.” 39 C.F.R. § 912.5(a).
Proof of Receipt: The district court ruled that only “affirmative evidence” from the Postal Service could prove receipt. It treated fax confirmation as insufficient, analogizing it to untrackable mail evidence rejected in Barber.
Distinguishing Barber: The Fifth Circuit held fax confirmations differ fundamentally from first‐class mail affidavits. A fax confirmation reflects a machine‐to‐machine “handshake” and immediate verification of transmission, unlike ordinary mail, which bears no contemporaneous receipt record.
Persuasive Authority: The court cited Laouini and several district‐court decisions recognizing that evidence of successful mailing or faxing via government tracking systems is probative of actual receipt.
Proper Standard: Concluding that the district court applied an overly broad rule, the Fifth Circuit remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard—namely, that a fax confirmation can constitute probative evidence of presentment.

3.3 Impact

This decision clarifies and enriches FTCA jurisprudence in several ways:

It expands acceptable proof of agency receipt beyond narrow traditions of mail affidavits to modern communication methods with built-in transmission verification.
It offers claimants clarity and confidence that retaining fax confirmations (or analogous digital logs) can satisfy the FTCA’s presentment condition.
It signals to lower courts the need to distinguish between untrackable submission methods and those providing contemporaneous confirmation records.
It may reduce jurisdictional dismissals based on disputes over receipt, encouraging more merits‐based adjudications.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A statute under which the United States waives sovereign immunity for certain torts by federal employees, provided claimants first present their claims to the relevant agency.
Presentment Requirement: The mandatory submission of a written claim (SF-95 or equivalent) to the federal agency responsible for investigating and settling FTCA claims before filing suit in court.
Standard Form 95 (SF-95): A standardized government form used to present FTCA claims for property damage, personal injury, or death caused by federal employees’ negligence.
Rule 12(b)(1) Motion: A procedural device for dismissing an action for lack of subject‐matter jurisdiction, including challenges to whether statutory conditions precedent (such as presentment) have been met.
Fax Confirmation Sheet: A printer-generated receipt indicating a fax was successfully transmitted, reflecting an electronic verification (“handshake”) between sending and receiving machines.

5. Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Spriggs v. United States establishes a significant new precedent: a fax confirmation sheet demonstrating successful transmission to the intended agency recipient qualifies as probative evidence of FTCA presentment. By distinguishing untrackable mail from verifiable digital submissions, the court modernizes the interpretation of a jurisdictional prerequisite and underscores that procedural formalities must adapt to evolving communication technologies. This ruling will guide claimants, agencies, and courts in striking the appropriate balance between strict adherence to statutory conditions and acknowledgment of reliable, contemporaneous proof of agency receipt.