758 F.3d 861
7th Cir.2014Background
- Tenille Wallace received prenatal care at the federally funded Friend Family Health Center and delivered at the private University of Chicago Hospital; her son E.Y. was later diagnosed with diplegic cerebral palsy.
- Wallace was informed her son may have suffered oxygen deprivation during delivery; a May 2006 diagnosis of cerebral palsy followed.
- Wallace consulted attorneys in November 2006; her lawyers requested medical records from both the Hospital and the Friend Center on November 28, 2006.
- The Friend Center provided a partial set of prenatal records on December 14, 2006 and complete records only in October 2007.
- Wallace sued on December 10, 2008; because the Friend Center is federally funded, claims against it are treated as FTCA suits against the United States and are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
- The district court initially denied the government’s motion to dismiss but later granted summary judgment for the United States, finding Wallace’s FTCA claim against the Center accrued by November 2006 when records were requested, making the suit about two weeks late. The Seventh Circuit reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does an FTCA medical-malpractice claim accrue with multiple potential tortfeasors (government and private)? | Accrual occurred when Wallace (or reasonable person) learned facts linking the Friend Center to injury — i.e., upon receiving partial Center records Dec. 14, 2006. | Accrual occurred when Wallace first suspected a doctor-related cause (by Nov. 2006 when records were requested), which should start the limitations period for all doctor-related claims. | A claim accrues when the plaintiff is subjectively aware of government involvement or acquires information that would prompt a reasonable person to inquire into government involvement, whichever comes first. Requests alone do not necessarily trigger accrual. |
| Whether suspicion of negligence by one medical provider triggers accrual as to separate providers in a different time/place | Wallace: Suspecting Hospital negligence does not necessarily put her on notice of prenatal care negligence by a separate Center at a different time/place. | Government: Suspecting any doctor-related cause should trigger the statute for all doctor-related defendants. | Court rejects a blanket rule; accrual for other providers depends on closeness in time/place and whether information would prompt inquiry into that specific provider. |
| Whether the record request (Nov. 28, 2006) established inquiry notice as a matter of law | Wallace: Record requests are consistent with routine fact-gathering and do not prove she suspected the Center. | Government: Requesting Center records demonstrates she suspected the Center and started the limitations clock. | Requests for records permit multiple reasonable inferences; on summary judgment, inference favoring plaintiff controls — the government did not show accrual as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoleson v. United States, 629 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir. 1980) (accrual when plaintiff discovers, or a reasonable person would discover, government-caused injury)
- Nemmers v. United States, 795 F.2d 628 (7th Cir. 1986) (limitations begins when plaintiff has information prompting deeper inquiry into cause)
- Drazan v. United States, 762 F.2d 56 (7th Cir. 1985) (knowledge of a non-governmental cause does not by itself start limitations as to government)
- Goodhand v. United States, 40 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994) (claims that arise from the same time/place may accrue together; distinct time/place claims may not)
- Arroyo v. United States, 656 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2011) (discusses subjective and objective accrual tests and inquiry notice)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (FTCA accrual not delayed until plaintiff knows malpractice; accrual tied to plaintiff's knowledge of injury and cause)