or two of the filing of an answer is the exception, rather than the rule. The Kubrick rationale surely promotes economy. It also, however, arguably constitutes a judicial abrogation of the limitation on sovereign immunity contained in the statute. In addition, the six-month period is itself powerfully justified. The statute was enacted to improve and expedite the disposition of tort claims against the government by establishing a system of prelitigation administrative consideration and settlement of claims, thereby reducing court congestion and eliminating unnecessary litigation. To permit appellee to maintain this action would undermine the important policy in favor of prelitigation administrative review and possible settlements express in section 2675(a). Rosario, 531 F.2d at 1233-34 (<HOLDING>). We think it fair to assume that once the
holding government must comply with the requirements of section 853pl to obtain a personal money judgment holding that a usbased company was an employer under the jones act holding that jones act claimant against the government must comply with the terms of  2675 holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice