Opinion ID: 202269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The December 2003 Administrative Claim

Text: 8 The plaintiffs first contend that, since Gioka neither knew nor had reason to know of the FBI's involvement in her father's murder until the summer of 2002, the district court erred in finding that the Gioka administrative claim, presented to the government in December 2003, was untimely under § 2401(b). The plaintiffs assert that the publicity about the case was centered primarily in the Boston area rather than national in scope, and that Gioka, who was in chronic poor health, lived in Georgia where she was not presumptively exposed to Boston media reports. 9 For purposes of calculating the § 2401(b) accrual date, the government need not demonstrate that plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the news of December 2000-January 2001; `[w]here events receive widespread publicity, plaintiffs may be charged with [constructive] knowledge of their occurrence.' Callahan v. United States, 426 F.3d 444, 452-53 (1st Cir.2005) (quoting McIntyre v. United States, 367 F.3d 38, 60 (1st Cir.2004)). Thus, the test is an objective one. See McIntyre, 367 F.3d at 52. The record demonstrates beyond serious dispute that the breaking news of the FBI's involvement in the Deegan murder did receive such widespread publicity. The Boston Globe and the Boston Herald published prominent accounts detailing the new facts relating to the FBI's role in the Deegan slaying, which were subsequently picked up by national wire services (API), nationally circulated news publications ( inter alia, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today), and national network news ( e.g., the CBS Early Show). Thus, the fact that Gioka resided in Georgia in December 2000-January 2001 is insufficient to vitiate a finding that she should have learned of the news at that time. 10 Gioka also contends that her medical condition, which included cognitive problems arising from an automobile accident, a stroke, and Lyme disease, prevented her from making a reasonable inquiry and discovering the FBI's complicity in her father's murder. Assuming, without deciding, that § 2401(b) might permit such a mental incapacity exception, 1 Gioka has not alleged facts which would enable her to assert it. She does not contend that her illnesses rendered her mentally incompetent. Thus, at a minimum, she would have to point to evidence demonstrating that the degree of her mental incapacity rendered her incapable of discovering with the exercise of reasonable diligence—and then of understanding—the news of the FBI's involvement in her father's death. See, e.g., Barnhart v. United States, 884 F.2d 295, 298-99 (7th Cir.1989). 11 Gioka has failed to make the requisite showing. She presents no medical reports detailing precisely how, or to what extent, her illnesses in fact impaired her ability to discover or comprehend the facts which were widely publicized in the national media. The Gioka affidavit merely states: At times, my concern about my health has been overwhelming and has left little room for other matters, including considerations of my father's death. She does not specify at which times she was incapacitated, which leaves open the possibility that she was not significantly impaired, for example, in December 2000 and early 2001 when the Deegan story first broke in the press. Further, even if we were to infer that her medical condition kept her bedridden or housebound, it apparently did not prevent her from accessing the media, since she admits to a memory of seeing the very end of a CNN report about Mr. Salvati. Finally, Gioka's sister, Catherine Patterson, admits that she had knowledge of the pertinent facts by the summer of 2001, 2 and it strains credulity to suggest that Patterson, knowing of her sister's alleged inability to conduct her own reasonably diligent inquiry, waited until the summer of 2002 to inform her sister of those facts. Thus, even assuming arguendo that mental incapacity could toll the accrual of an FTCA claim, Gioka has not provided a sufficient factual basis entitling her to that defense.