Hagan v. United States
275 F. Supp. 3d 252
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- L.C.H., born prematurely in April 2007, was hospitalized in Sept. 2007 after seizures and respiratory deterioration; CT (Sept. 11) and MRI (Sept. 17) showed edema and findings described as infarction/stroke.
- Parents (Hagan and Wilson) were informed in Sept. 2007 of seizures and a stroke; contemporaneous medical notes are ambiguous about whether physicians told the parents their son had lasting neurological injury.
- Treating clinicians through mid-2008 repeatedly documented “no apparent neurologic sequelae” or “grossly normal” neurological exams, while later evaluations (July 2008 onward and a Feb. 2009 MRI) documented developmental delay, gliosis/encephalomalacia, and a hypoxic‑ischemic encephalopathy diagnosis (first recorded March 2, 2009).
- Plaintiffs filed an administrative FTCA claim on July 23, 2010; under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) a claim accrues when the plaintiff discovers the injury and its cause, so accrual on/after July 23, 2008 would preserve the claim.
- The government moved for summary judgment asserting accrual (and thus time-bar) in Sept. 2007; plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment that accrual occurred later. The court denied both motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the FTCA claim accrue (i.e., when did plaintiffs know or reasonably should have known of a brain injury)? | Hagan/Wilson: treating physicians repeatedly documented no neurologic sequelae and development appeared normal through mid‑2008; experts say injury was "masked by normalcy" until at least July 25, 2008, so accrual occurred later. | U.S.: parents were told in Sept. 2007 of seizures, imaging showing stroke/edema, and risk of neuromotor dysfunction; a reasonable person with those facts should have known of a brain injury in Sept. 2007. | Denied both summary judgment motions. Material factual disputes (including credibility and what physicians told parents) preclude resolution as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (establishing FTCA accrual when plaintiff discovered injury and its cause)
- Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (FTCA time limits are non‑jurisdictional procedural limits)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; view evidence in nonmovant's favor)
- In re Swine Flu Immunization Prod. Liab. Litig., 880 F.2d 1439 (accrual may be delayed where early symptoms subside and later, different symptoms appear)
- T.L. ex rel. Ingram v. United States, 443 F.3d 956 (notice of severe, permanent brain injury shortly after birth supported early accrual)
- Raddatz v. United States, 750 F.2d 791 (reasonable reliance on treating physicians’ assurances can delay accrual)
- E.Y. ex rel. Wallace v. United States, 758 F.3d 861 (courts avoid requiring paranoid investigations; treating physicians’ statements can be relied upon)