D.B. v. Shelby Cnty. Health Care Corp., 20-6407

Infant D.B. sustained brain injuries at birth on May 2, 2014; mother Antoinette Lundy sought legal review in Dec. 2014 and counsel closed the file in Apr. 2015 after advising it was too early to sue.
FTCA’s two-year limitations period ran in May 2016; Lundy retained new counsel in Sept. 2016.
New counsel sent pre-suit letters April 28, 2017; HHS notified counsel that Christ Community Health Services (CCHS) and covered employees were FTCA‑deemed and that FTCA administrative exhaustion/exclusive remedy applied.
Lundy filed state negligence suit Aug. 22, 2017 and an administrative claim Oct. 13, 2017; the case was removed, the United States substituted as defendant, and the FTCA claim was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
The United States moved for summary judgment asserting the FTCA claim was time‑barred by the two‑year statute; the district court granted summary judgment, finding no basis for equitable tolling. Lundy appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FTCA two‑year limitations period should be equitably tolled	Lundy: tolling warranted because counsel delayed, encountered website/down issues, and diligently pursued the claim given infant status	U.S.: no tolling—plaintiff and counsel had constructive notice and failed to act before the deadline	No equitable tolling; summary judgment for the Government affirmed
Constructive knowledge of CCHS/physician FTCA status	Lundy: public notices were not prominent enough to impart knowledge	U.S.: CCHS website and the physician’s public work address gave constructive notice of FTCA status	Court found constructive knowledge existed via website and work address
Diligence in investigating liability and timeliness	Lundy: first counsel reviewed records and reasonably delayed; new counsel performed searches later	U.S.: no adequate pre‑deadline investigative steps by plaintiff or initial counsel	Court held lack of pre‑deadline diligence defeats tolling claim
Reasonableness of remaining ignorant (religious‑organization assumption)	Lundy: CCHS’s religious character made it reasonable to assume it wasn’t federally designated	U.S.: assumption unreasonable; public information contradicted it and law permits church‑state affiliation	Court rejected plaintiff’s religious‑status defense as unreasonable

Jackson v. United States, 751 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling standard; burden on claimant)
Zappone v. United States, 870 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2017) (limitations on equitable tolling analysis in FTCA cases)
Chomic v. United States, 377 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2004) (equitable tolling applied sparingly against the government)
Bazzo v. United States, [citation="494 F. App'x 545"] (6th Cir. 2012) (failure to detail counsel’s steps undermines tolling claim)
A.Q.C. ex rel. Castillo v. United States, 656 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2011) (diligence includes investigating defendant’s status and timeliness restrictions)
Blanche v. United States, 811 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2016) (denying tolling where no evidence counsel used available FTCA search tools)
Mason v. Dep’t of Justice, [citation="39 F. App'x 205"] (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney actions are attributable to the client)
Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) (rejecting strict separation preventing government affiliation with religious entities)
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) (recognizing permissible interaction between government and religious institutions)