Opinion ID: 218824
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statute of Limitations under the FTCA

Text: In United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979), the Supreme Court held that a medical malpractice claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows both the existence and the cause of his injury,” even if he does not yet know that “the acts inflicting the injury may constitute medical malpractice.” Id. at 113, 122. “[A] medical malpractice claim under the FTCA accrues when the plaintiff is, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should be, aware of both [his] injury and its 6 connection with some act of the defendant.” McCullough v. United States, 607 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Price v. United States, 775 F.2d 1491, 1494 (11th Cir. 1985)). This principle has been extended to wrongful death claims under the FTCA, and such a claim accrues “when the plaintiff knows, or exercising reasonable diligence should know, both of the decedent’s death and its causal connection with the government.” Diaz v. United States, 165 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 1999). By “causal connection with the government,” we do not mean that the limitations period does not accrue until the plaintiff is aware of the government’s role; “the statute of limitations under the FTCA does not wait until a plaintiff is aware that an alleged tort-feasor is a federal employee.” Garza v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 284 F.3d 930, 936 (8th Cir. 2002) (quoting Gould v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 905 F.2d 738, 745 (4th Cir. 1990)). Here, Ramos admitted that she was aware of James’s death and its cause on January 10, 2005. She argues, however, that the cause of action did not accrue until she learned of the government’s role in April 2007. We disagree. Under our caselaw, Ramos’s knowledge of her father’s death and the cause of his death was sufficient to trigger the statute of limitations clock. That Ramos did not learn until later that the government was the proper defendant does not alter this analysis. see Garza, 284 F.3d at 936. Accordingly, because Ramos did 7 not file her administrative claim within two years of January 10, 2005, the district court properly concluded that the claim was untimely. The question then remains whether the limitations period should equitably toll.