Task: songer_realapp

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
Your task is to determine whether or not the formally listed appellants in the case are the "real parties." That is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake? (e.g., in some appeals of adverse habeas corpus petition decisions, the respondent is listed as the judge who denied the petition, but the real parties are the prisoner and the warden of the prison) (another example would be "Jones v A 1990 Rolls Royce" where Jones is a drug agent trying to seize a car which was transporting drugs - the real party would be the owner of the car). For cases in which an independent regulatory agency is the listed appellant, the following rule was adopted: If the agency initiated the action to enforce a federal rule or the agency was sued by a litigant contesting an agency action, then the agency was coded as a real party. However, if the agency initially only acted as a forum to settle a dispute between two other litigants, and the agency is only listed as a party because its ruling in that dispute is at issue, then the agency is considered not to be a real party. For example, if a union files an unfair labor practices charge against a corporation, the NLRB hears the dispute and rules for the union, and then the NLRB petitions the court of appeals for enforcement of its ruling in an appeal entitled "NLRB v Widget Manufacturing, INC." the NLRB would be coded as not a real party. Note that under these definitions, trustees are usually "real parties" and parents suing on behalf of their children and a spouse suing on behalf of their injured or dead spouse are also "real parties."

J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from dismissal on summary judgment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, James T. Foley, Chief Judge, as untimely of a Tort Claims Act suit. The action was brought on behalf of a serviceman, his wife and an infant son whose illness, meningitis, was negligently diagnosed at the United States Air Force Base Hospital at Plattsburgh, New York as teething with a cold. The original diagnosis by a Dr. Marger was on or about April 15, 1971; further diagnosis and treatment occurred at the United States Naval Hospital, Balboa, California beginning later in April; claim was first made January 14, 1974; suit was brought in December of 1974. Since a two-year limitations period for filing a claim applies from the date a claim “accrues,” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), the suit was untimely unless the claim accrued after January 13, 1972. Plaintiffs rely on two theories to support a contention that the period did not begin until a date within two years of the institution of the claim: first, a “continuing treatment” theory, see Kossick v. United States, 330 F.2d 933, 936 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 837, 85 S.Ct. 73, 13 L.Ed.2d 44 (1964); Ciccarone v. United States, 486 F.2d 253, 256 (3d Cir. 1973); Modave v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center, 501 F.2d 1065, 1074 (2d Cir. 1974) (applying New York law), and second, a claim that the alleged negligence was first reasonably apparent to the child’s mother not earlier than two years prior to claim, see Jordan v. United States, 503 F.2d 620, 622 (6th Cir. 1974); Tyminski v. United States, 481 F.2d 257, 265 (3d Cir. 1973); Toal v. United States, 438 F.2d 222 (2d Cir. 1971); Hungerford v. United States, 307 F.2d 99 (9th Cir. 1962); Quinton v. United States, 304 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1962).
We agree with Chief Judge Foley that there is no merit in the first contention, since the treatment was not continuous by the same doctor (or an associate) or the same hospital for the required period.
The second contention may eventually be found not to have merit. The affidavit of the young mother, however, states that she had been told that she must be patient because the teeth cutting episode could last for a period of time, that at Balboa the diagnosis was undetermined and that the child was very sick and that they suspected meningitis. Moreover, the affidavit appears to assert that the first information she received, that delay in treatment may have caused the severe injuries, came in advice from a Dr. Davis on June 6, 1972, within two years of the date of claim. The hospital records indicate a finding of meningitis, although they also indicate tests for possible tuberculosis. It is not established to what extent the hospital records were available to one in the mother’s situation.
To be sure, on the claim, pleadings and affidavits there is support for a finding that plaintiff mother knew more than two years before claim that Dr. Marger’s diagnosis of teething and cold was incorrect, but plaintiffs claim that the wording was that of counsel and that plaintiffs can explain apparent inconsistencies. In addition, plaintiffs contend that a person in the position of the mother could not reasonably discover earlier than she did that the delay in correct diagnosis could and did cause the injuries complained of.
We think that on the record before the court a genuine issue of material fact existed, as to when a reasonable person in the position of the child’s mother should have realized that negligent malpractice had occurred. Summary judgment was therefore improper. Heyman v. Commerce & Industry Insurance Co., 524 F.2d 1317 (2d Cir. 1975); Judge v. City of Buffalo, 524 F.2d 1321 (2d Cir. 1975).
Reversed and remanded.

Question: Are the formally listed appellants in the case the "real parties", that is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake?
A. both 1st and 2nd listed appellants are real parties (or only one appellant, and that appellant is a real party)
B. the 1st appellant is not a real party
C. the 2nd appellant is not a real party
D. neither the 1st nor the 2nd appellants are real parties
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A