E. Y. v. United States
758 F.3d 861
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Tenille Wallace gave birth at the University of Chicago Hospital in April 2005; her son E.Y. was later diagnosed with diplegic cerebral palsy in May 2006.
- Wallace received prenatal care at the federally funded Friend Family Health Center; the Center and its doctor were treated as federal defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 233(g) and the FTCA.
- Wallace’s attorneys requested records from both the Hospital and the Friend Center on November 28, 2006; the Center produced partial prenatal records on December 14, 2006 and full records in October 2007.
- Wallace filed suit on December 10, 2008; administrative exhaustion and substitution issues briefly delayed the federal claim, but the filing date is treated as December 10, 2008 for FTCA timing purposes.
- The government contended Wallace’s FTCA claim accrued by November 2006 (when records were requested) and so was time-barred by the FTCA’s two-year limit; the district court denied a motion to dismiss but later granted summary judgment for the government, finding accrual in November 2006.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that a reasonable factfinder could find Wallace did not have inquiry notice of the Friend Center’s involvement until receipt of the partial records on December 14, 2006, so the FTCA suit was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does an FTCA medical-malpractice claim accrue where care was provided by both federal and private providers? | Accrual occurs when plaintiff becomes subjectively aware of government involvement or when information would prompt a reasonable person to inquire further; Wallace contends inquiry notice arose Dec. 14, 2006 when partial Center records were received. | Government argues suspicion of any doctor-related cause (in Nov. 2006 when records were requested) starts limitations period as to all doctor causes, including federal. | Court adopts accrual rule: accrues at subjective knowledge of government involvement or when a reasonable person would be prompted to inquire into a government-related cause, whichever first. |
| Whether suspicion of a private provider automatically triggers accrual as to a separate federal provider | Wallace: suspecting Hospital negligence does not automatically create inquiry notice of the Center’s role, given time/place separation of care. | Government: suspecting any doctor-caused injury should trigger accrual for all doctor-related causes, federal or private. | Court rejects government’s broad rule; knowledge of a private provider’s possible negligence does not necessarily start the FTCA clock as to a distinct federal provider. |
| Whether requesting medical records from the Center in Nov. 2006 constituted inquiry notice of the Center’s involvement | Wallace: the records request can reflect routine, prudent investigation and not suspicion of Center malpractice. | Government: the record requests show Wallace suspected the Center’s involvement by Nov. 2006. | Court held both inferences reasonable; at summary judgment Wallace must be given benefit of doubt — reasonable trier could find accrual occurred Dec. 14, 2006 when partial records raised specific concerns. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on statute-of-limitations grounds | Wallace: disputed facts about state of her knowledge and purpose of records request create genuine issue for trial. | Government: evidence (records request) establishes accrual before Dec. 10, 2006 so summary judgment proper. | Court reversed summary judgment and remanded because reasonable inferences favoring Wallace preclude ruling accrual occurred before Dec. 10, 2006. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoleson v. United States, 629 F.2d 1265 (7th Cir. 1980) (early statement that FTCA accrual turns on discovery of injury and its government-related cause)
- Nemmers v. United States, 795 F.2d 628 (7th Cir. 1986) (statute begins when plaintiff has information to discover both injury and its cause; inquiry notice concept)
- Arroyo v. United States, 656 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2011) (accrual when plaintiff knows or a reasonable person would know injury and cause; inquiry notice triggers further investigation)
- Arteaga v. United States, 711 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2013) (discusses accrual standard and inquiry notice equivalent)
- Drazan v. United States, 762 F.2d 56 (7th Cir. 1985) (knowledge of non-governmental cause does not start limitations running as to government cause)
- Goodhand v. United States, 40 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 1994) (claims arising from related events/time/place accrue together; distinct time/place claims do not automatically accrue together)
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (U.S. 1979) (FTCA accrual not delayed until actual knowledge of malpractice; plaintiff need not know legal cause to trigger limitations)