Bayless v. United States
2014 WL 1663082
10th Cir.2014Background
- Bayless developed a progressive neurological illness beginning in 1997 while working near Dugway and Tooele Army sites, later suspected exposure to nerve agents,”
- She pursued extensive medical evaluations with inconsistent results and shifting theories (MS, psychosomatic, heavy metals, pesticides, infections).
- In early 2005 she learned of Dugway/Tooele activity and began focusing on potential chemical/nerve agent exposure; later testing by various doctors produced conflicting results.
- By 2007 she underwent cholinesterase testing that showed exposure indicators; she filed an FTCA administrative claim in January 2008 and a civil action in May 2009.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on accrual in 2005; the court of appeals reversed, applying an exceptional discovery rule concluding accrual occurred in February 2007.
- The court emphasized the unusual facts where the plaintiff pursued many leads with conflicting medical assessments, but reasonable diligence was maintained and the discovery rule applied to toll accrual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FTCA accrual applies discovery rule here | Bayless argues accrual did not occur until February 2007. | United States contends accrual happened by May 2005 under Plaza Speedway. | Accrual under discovery rule in February 2007. |
| Whether Bayless acted with reasonable diligence | Bayless pursued multiple doctors and tests despite conflicting results. | Bayless failed to pursue certain leads; objective tests contradicted her suspicions. | Bayless sufficiently diligent; not barred by accrual in 2005. |
| Whether equitable tolling/estoppel apply | Equitable tolling should save timely filing given discovery delay. | No equitable tolling applicable. | Court did not need to reach tolling because accrual was timely under discovery rule. |
| Standard of review for accrual timing | Review de novo on accrual date. | Summary judgment appropriate if accrual evident. | De novo review applied to accrual determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plaza Speedway Inc. v. United States, 311 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2002) (discovery rule applied to FTCA toxic tort; accrual at geologist's call/inspection point)
- Kubrick v. United States, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (accrual triggered by knowledge of injury and its cause, not malpractice claim)
- Arvayo v. United States, 766 F.2d 1416 (10th Cir. 1985) (reasonable diligence assessed objectively; not require inquiry into every clue)
- Stoleson v. United States, 629 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir. 1980) (lay suspicion alone not enough; medical proof needed before accrual)
- Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998) (compelling proof not required for accrual; discovery can occur with medical support)