634 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1980). There, the plaintiff fell at a government construction site and was treated at a military medical facility. In his administrative claim, the plaintiff described the fall, but only alleged that he received negligent medical care from the United States. Before the district court, however, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the fall itself was the result of the government’s negligence. In that ease, we rejected the government’s contention that plaintiffs administrative claim did not encompass any claim for liability from the fall and held that the administrative claim more broadly put the government on notice for claims arising from injuries sustained as a result of the fall. See also Broudy v. United States, 722 F.2d 566 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Taking into account our prior precedent, and
holding that complaint alleging design defect likely to cause damage failed to state a claim holding plaintiffs administrative complaint alleging negligent exposure to radiation established subject matter jurisdiction for plaintiffs civil claim alleging failure to warn of radiation exposure holding that plaintiffs failure to warn claim could not proceed independent of plaintiffs aemld claim holding that insurance coverage in the context of asbestosrelated diseases is triggered by exposure exposure in residence and manifestation holding that an eighth amendment plaintiff did not have to prove that he was actually injured by exposure to raw sewage only that such exposure posed a serious health risk