Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the Court has intimated that tolling based on mental incapacity is allowed. More recently, it decided Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43, 122 S.Ct. 1036, 152 L.Ed.2d 79 (2002), a bankruptcy case that involved whether 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8)(A)(i)’s lookback period could be tolled during the pendency of a prior bankruptcy petition. The Court noted that equitable tolling has been widely permitted in the two situations acknowledged in Irwin, supra, and its progeny. Young, 535 U.S. at 50, 122 S.Ct. 1036. Significantly, and of critical importance to the outcome of Young, the Supreme Court said, “We have acknowledged, however, that tolling might be appropriate in other cases, and this, we believe is one.” Id. (citations omitted). Equitable tolling of federal statutes of limi (1st Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and D.C. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that 26 usc  6511 may not be equitably tolled but that mental incapacity is a grounds for tolling when available (B) holding that 42 usc  405g may be equitably tolled based on a plaintiffs mental impairment (C) holding that 5 usc  7703b2 can be tolled due to mental incapacity (D) holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling (E) holding that  2401b of the ftca can be equitably tolled
Output (English): holding that 42 usc  405g may be equitably tolled based on a plaintiffs mental impairment