Gabriela Arteaga v. United States
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6452
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff mother sues Erie Family Health Center for negligent prenatal care that allegedly caused a brachial plexus injury to her child during a shoulder dystocia birth.
- The district court dismissed the FTCA claim as barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- Erie is privately operated but receives federal funds, making its employees federal for FTCA purposes; suit thus proceeds under FTCA only.
- Administrative claim was filed; district court initially dismissed for failure to exhaust, but plaintiff later exhausted remedies and refiled under FTCA.
- Dispute centers on accrual of the statute of limitations and whether equitable tolling can apply to FTCA claims.
- Court ultimately holds tolling is possible, and rejects the argument that Erie’s federal status was concealed to justify tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does FTCA accrual begin? | Accrual began when plaintiff learned of possible negligence (Dec 2009). | Accrual occurs at knowledge of injury and likely cause (Kubrick rule) regardless of discovery of federal status. | Accrual begins at knowledge of injury and potential cause. |
| Can FTCA claims be equitably tolled? | Equitable tolling should apply to FTCA claims due to discovery delays and misdirection by counsel. | Sovereign immunity and jurisdictional limits restrict tolling; Medicare/FTCA exhaustion rules are not tolled. | Equitable tolling can apply to FTCA claims. |
| Did Erie’s disclosure (or lack thereof) affect tolling? | Erie concealed federal status to mislead plaintiffs about shorter limitations. | No concealment; any disclosure was insufficient to toll; equitable tolling not warranted. | No tolling based on concealment; tolling still available on other grounds. |
| Does Auburn Regional Medical Center affect FTCA tolling analysis? | Auburn supports narrowing tolling against government claims. | Auburn reduces jurisdictional sensitivity but does not preclude tolling under FTCA. | Auburn supports recognizing non-jurisdictional tolling for FTCA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (accrual requires knowledge of injury and possible cause)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling applicable to government as to private defendants)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008) (statutes of limitations that preserve sovereign immunity are jurisdictional and not tolled)
- Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 133 S. Ct. 817 (2013) (exhaustion deadlines in healthcare claims treated nonjurisdictionally absent a clear statement)
- Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (2010) (discovery and status of provider can affect tolling under FTCA)
- Arroyo v. United States, 656 F.3d 663 (2011) (federal status of provider identified; tolling considerations discussed)
- Gould v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 905 F.2d 738 (4th Cir. 1990) (en banc; FTCA tolling considerations)
- Massey v. United States, 312 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2002) (statutory accrual and discovery principles in FTCA contexts)
- Skwira v. United States, 344 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2003) (limitations accrual and discovery aspects under FTCA)
- Hensley v. United States, 531 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2008) (discovery-based accrual considerations in FTCA context)