United States v. Kubrick
62 L. Ed. 2d 259 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1979
Facts
Respondent Kubrick, a veteran, was admitted to a Veterans’ Administration (VA) hospital in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., in April 1968 for treatment of a femur infection. Following surgery, the infected area was irrigated with neomycin, an antibiotic. Approximately six weeks after discharge, Kubrick noticed a ringing sensation in his ears and some loss of hearing, which an ear specialist diagnosed as bilateral nerve deafness. In January 1969, another specialist, Dr. Sataloff, informed Kubrick that his hearing loss was highly possible due to the neomycin treatment administered at the hospital. Kubrick filed an application for increased disability benefits, alleging the neomycin caused his deafness, but the VA denied the claim in September 1969, finding no causal relationship or fault. On June 2, 1971, Dr. Soma told Kubrick that the neomycin had caused his injury and should not have been administered. Kubrick then consulted an attorney, and in August 1972, the VA Board of Appeals recognized the hearing loss may have been caused by neomycin but rejected the appeal, stating the treatment was acceptable and the Government faultless.
Procedural history
Kubrick filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging negligent treatment in the VA hospital. The District Court rendered judgment for Kubrick, rejecting the government's statute of limitations defense, finding the claim accrued in June 1971. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, ruling that the statute of limitations does not run if the plaintiff, with due diligence, did not know facts alerting a reasonable person to possible improper treatment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue
The issue is whether a tort claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act "accrues" 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.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that a tort claim accrues under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the plaintiff knows both the existence and the cause of his injury. It does not accrue at a later time when the plaintiff 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 accrues, for statute of limitations purposes, when the plaintiff knows both the existence and the cause of his injury. The plaintiff's ignorance of his legal rights or of the fact that his injury was negligently inflicted does not postpone the accrual of the claim. Statutes of limitations are statutes of repose, designed to protect defendants from stale claims and encourage prompt presentation. A plaintiff armed with the facts about the harm done can protect himself by seeking advice in the medical and legal community. To excuse a plaintiff from promptly doing so by postponing accrual would undermine the purpose of the limitations statute.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.