of a claim may satisfy the requirements of any number of government acts. Rather, the inquiry is, regardless of which other government acts the claim complies with, did the claim comply with the presentment requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) of the FTCA. This Court holds that it did. One of the presentment requirements of section 2675(a) is that the administrative claim state a sum certain for damages. Melo v. United States, 505 F.2d 1026, 1029 (8th Cir failed to use the words “tort” or “negligence” or that FGS failed to invoke the FTCA in its January administrative claim as long as the claim otherwise informed the BIA of the injury, the circumstances of that injury, and the amount of damages. See Santiago-Ramirez v. Secretary of Dep’t of Defense, 984 F.2d 16, 19-20 (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Satisfaction of the presentment requirements
holding that the independent contractor exception in the ftca would not insulate the government from the contractors negligence if the duty was nondelegable under florida law holding that section 2675a was satisfied by an administrative claim which identified the claimant the date of the incident the location of the incident the government agency involved and the type of injury alleged even if the claim did not specifically mention the ftca negligence or tort holding that the plaintiffs claim against the united states for negligence was not a tort claim within the ftca where it was founded upon an alleged failure to perform explicit or implicit contractual obligations holding that the government is liable under the ftca in the same respect as a private person under the law of the place where the act occurred holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim