Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuittortplaintiffnegligencestatuteappealhearingmalpracticestatute of limitationsrespondent
tortplaintiffstatuteappealhearingmalpracticestatute of limitationsrespondent

Related Cases

Khourassany v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Porro v. Barnes
View Case »
F-B-S-, Matter of;
View Case »
Globenet, Inc. v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Koden v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kubrick; U.S. v.

Facts

Respondent Kubrick, a veteran, was treated at a VA hospital for an infection and subsequently developed hearing loss, which he later learned was likely caused by the antibiotic neomycin used during treatment. After being denied benefits by the VA, he filed a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The district court ruled in his favor, stating that the statute of limitations did not begin until he had reason to suspect negligence, which was determined to be after a conversation with a doctor in 1971.

Respondent Kubrick, a veteran, was admitted to the Veterans' Administration (VA) hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., in April 1968, for treatment of an infection of the right femur. Following surgery, the infected area was irrigated with neomycin, an antibiotic, until the infection cleared. Approximately six weeks after discharge, Kubrick noticed a ringing sensation in his ears and some loss of hearing.

Issue

Whether the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act begins to run when a plaintiff knows both the existence and cause of his injury, or at a later time when he also knows that the acts inflicting the injury may constitute medical malpractice.

The issue in this case is whether the claim 'accrues' within the meaning of the Act when the plaintiff knows both the existence and the cause of his injury or at a later time when he also knows that the acts inflicting the injury may constitute medical malpractice.

Rule

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a tort claim against the United States is barred unless presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues, which occurs when the plaintiff knows of the injury and its cause.

Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Act), 1 28 U. S. C. 2401 (b) , a tort claim against the United States is barred unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate federal agency 'within two years after such claim accrues.'

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the accrual language was incorrect. The Court held that a claim accrues when the plaintiff is aware of the injury and its probable cause, regardless of whether the plaintiff suspects negligence. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff had the means to seek advice regarding his treatment and should not be excused from acting within the statute of limitations.

The Court held that Congress did not intend that accrual of a claim must await awareness by the veteran that his injury was negligently inflicted as he was armed with the facts about the harm done to him, and could have protected himself by seeking advice in the medical and legal community.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the statute of limitations had expired because Kubrick was aware of his injury and its cause in January 1969.

The Court reversed the order from the court of appeals that found that the two year statute of limitations did not bar respondent veteran's claim.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court determined that the statute of limitations had expired, as Kubrick was aware of the relevant facts regarding his injury and its cause.

The Court held that accrual of the claim was not intended to await awareness by respondent that his injury was negligently inflicted when he was armed with the facts about the harm done to him.

You must be