*1 Before W OOD , Chief Judge , B AUER R OVNER , Circuit Judges .

R OVNER Circuit Judge. This appeal district court’s dismissal, statute grounds, a medical malpractice claim. plaintiff, Johnnie Watkins, filed *2 the action on behalf of adult daughter Johnnice Ford, who is disabled person. The alleged sought treatment emergency room of Ingalls Memorial Hospital, where treated by Dr. Bari Parks Ballard, an employee of Family Christian Health Center. She asserts Parks Ballard failed properly diagnose treat Ford, who was eventually diagnosed with Wernicke’s encephalopathy and who sustained neurological injuries including permanent disability. Because Family Christian Health Center operated pursuant grant money from Public Health Services, an agency United States government, action brought pursuant Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and United States defendant. The district court dismissed beyond relevant statute limitations, plaintiff appeals determination. On appeal, the argues court erred taking prior lawsuit dismissing based the statute limitations without allowing establish suffered mental disability. We agree the reasoning district affirm.

As recognized, FTCA constitutes a limited waiver United States’ sovereign immunity, allows individuals pursue actions against federal government “personal injury or death negligent wrongful act or omission any employee Government while acting within scope his office or employment.” U.S.C. § 2675(a); Warram , Cir. 2005). applicable FTCA statute bars any presented writing to appropriate agency claim’s accrual. *3 16 2109 3 Under the savings clause, time period can be extended as long the plaintiff a civil suit concerning the underlying tort claim within its accrual presented the appropriate federal agency 60 days civil suit’s dismissal.

In assessing the timeliness the 2015 action, we must first identify when claim accrued, because limitations period begins run at time. In United States v. Kubrick , 444 U.S. 111, 118 (1979), Supreme Court held a cause action purposes period accrues when claimant knows, or reasonably expected know, existence her injury who caused it, whether or not claimant is aware there negligence or a wrongful act involved. See also Blanche v. United States , 811 F.3d 953, (7th Cir. 2016). In Barnhart v. United States , F.2d 298, Cir. 1989), we addressed a claim injury itself impaired ability plaintiff understand pursue her claim, we considered such incapacity toll accrual date; we held proper focus determining when claim accrued under discovery rule cases remains claimant’s or ability discover and comprehend In Blanche we further noted plaintiff know injury doctor; “the accrual date when has enough information suspect, reasonable person would suspect, injury ‘had doctor related cause.’” F.3d quoting Arroyo (7th Cir. 2011).

In determining accrued 2010, took state medical *4 16 ‐ 2109 malpractice claim filed August 2010 by against Ingalls Memorial Hospital, Dr. Parks Ballard, Family Christian Health Center. See Ennenga Starns 677 F.3d 766, 773 Cir. 2012) (noting considering a motion to dismiss, courts may take facts readily ascertainable from the public record dates which certain actions were taken). The noted August contained virtually same those in this case regarding failure timely diagnose treat her encephalopathy. voluntarily dismissed complaint within month after its filing, but its relevance its reflec ‐ tion awareness defendants caused her

Because reflects an her injuries were defendant (through its agents), at minimum claim accrued 2010. Pursuant to provision applicable FTCA claims, Ford proceed claim against if (1) presented claim appropriate agency within years date claim’s accrual; (2) filed civil suit within 2 years from date accrual presented appropriate federal agency within 60 days the civil suit’s dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(5); Blanche , The failed satisfy either those alternate avenues. claim was presented adminis trative agency until January was approximately 1/2 years after date claim accrued. Nor claim presented appropriate agency within days from dismissal civil suit date accrual. No submitted agency within *5 16 days of dismissal of August action, and no other civil suit filed of claim’s accrual, which August at latest. On that basis, district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss complaint.

Watkins raises number challenges to reasoning. First, Watkins argues district court improperly failed to credit her allegations Ford suffered mental disability since September 2008. Watkins alleged in complaint Ford “has been disabled since September 10, when diagnosed Wernicke’s encepha lopathy,” and “has been unable manage her person, estate unable recognize cause her action due her diagnosis Wernicke’s encephalopathy.” Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint § further provided Watkins brought cause as Ford’s legal guardian “due Johnnice Ford’s inability make medical, legal, financial decisions herself.” Id. § 7. Watkins asserts district court failed consider those allegations true, as required addressing Rule 12(b)(6) motion, if it had done so, it have necessarily concluded Ford’s mental disability prevented her from recognizing “doctor related cause injuries.”

But court properly took judicial notice state Ford’s counsel 2010, contained same essential present suit. We speculate whether alleged mental disability impacted ability recognize cause her injuries, because lawsuit establishes actually aware Watkins argues, however, erred taking *6 complaint, alleging that the filing the complaint establishes facts—that Ford’s name appears in caption and the complaint was filed on a certain date. She asserts record is devoid evidence Ford had any its filing. That bare allegation, without more, is insufficient render complaint irrelevant these proceedings. Watkins provides nothing more than mere speculation complaint filed without Ford’s awareness. She includes no argument as how attorney who filed complaint aware injuries Ford and circumstances which injuries without participation awareness. Moreover, she never alleges she has, or provide, evidence calling into question legitimacy complaint, such affidavit evidence attorney who filed it indicating he or communicated someone other than Ford, or evidence attorney engaged such unethical behavior in other such cases by purporting bring a action on behalf person without person’s knowledge consent. Al ‐ though appeal is here on motion dismiss, com ‐ plaint public record establish aware injury its cause, fact pursuing legal claims, To survive dismissal, Watkins must allege some non speculative basis to dispute conclusion. Absent there is plausi ble, good faith basis challenge legitimacy August complaint, entitled take contained same essential before us now.

Moreover, although complaint alleges Ford has been disabled since September 10, 2008, when she was diag nosed with Wernicke’s encephalopathy, and has been unable to manage her person and estate and to recognize cause her due to diagnosis, there no allegation any guardian was appointed for Ford until Watkins was named her guardian on January Accordingly, complaint as cannot be attacked basis Ford legally could act through guardian.

Watkins questions whether considered statements Ford’s physicians case workers regarding her brain damage, such statement in her physician she was unable to attend to her financial affairs since she was unresponsive for unknown reasons he not predict when she would able to attend to her personal affairs. Although in November manager issued a report indicating due Watkins’ cognitive and physical impairments, she was unable care for her children, Watkins appointed guardian for children, no guardian appointed nothing indicated total inability understand her own circumstances appreciate cause As we concluded earlier, however, we not assess whether allegations disability have been sufficient permit an inference Ford unable recognize injuries, because allegations in establish least date fact possessed knowledge. Contrary Watkins’ argument this court, taking judicial did take notice validity substance it, but rather took *8 notice existence timing those allegations. Whether are valid not, can take their presence complaint, presence demonstrates potential allegations time. Because accrued at least of date, this not period. As we uphold dismissal ground, we consider defendant’s alternative argument dismissal also proper under Illinois’ statute repose. See Augutis Cir. 2013).

Accordingly, decision is AFFIRMED.