Opinion ID: 670122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: FTCA and Privacy Act Claims

Text: 7 The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' FTCA and Privacy Act claims, reasoning that because the events giving rise to that lawsuit all occurred between 1977 and January 1987 plaintiffs' administrative claim, filed on July 25, 1989, had been untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(b). 2 In so ruling, the district court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the statute of limitations had not begun to run until September 1987, when in the context of another suit, they first learned of the government's alleged negligence in handling their loan. 8 On appeal, plaintiffs reiterate their argument that the discovery rule should be applied to toll the statute of limitations on their tort and Privacy Act causes of action until September, 1987, when they learned of the causal connection between the FmHA's alleged negligent loan handling and the failure of their farm. They rely principally on cases applying the discovery rule to situations involving a physical injury or illness. In those cases, the courts held that the plaintiffs' actions did not accrue until both the injury and its cause were known. See United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (plaintiff's cause of action accrued when he became aware of the link between his hearing loss and the treatment provided at a VA hospital); Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799 (9th Cir.1987) (medical malpractice claim accrued when plaintiff learned that her baby's retardation was caused by an IUD); Raddatz v. United States, 750 F.2d 791 (9th Cir.1984) (medical malpractice claim accrued when plaintiff learned that the doctor's treatment had caused the infection of her already perforated uterus). 9 In holding that a cause of action does not accrue until a plaintiff knows of an injury's cause as well as the injury itself, however, these cases also make clear that cause refers to the actual physical cause of the injury, and not necessarily the negligent actions of a particular defendant. See Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (veteran's cause of action accrued when he learned of the link between the antibiotic and his hearing loss, even though he did not at that time know that the administration of the drug had been improper and negligent); Dyniewicz v. United States, 742 F.2d 484 (9th Cir.1984) (plaintiff's cause of action accrued at the time of their parents' fatal accident, even though they did not know that negligence of government employees may have contributed to the accident). 10 The injury plaintiffs identify here is the loss of their farm, and attendant financial and emotional setbacks. 3 The cause of these injuries was a combination of the DDE spraying, the stem nematode infestation, and the lack of adequate and timely loan financing. Plaintiffs were well aware of all three of these causes well before September of 1987. The fact that they did not learn of the alleged negligence of the FmHA that contributed to their loan being financed despite the stem nematode infestation and perhaps caused the various delays in getting their loans funded did not toll the statute of limitations. See Dyniewicz, 742 F.2d 484.