Court Opinion

ID: 9459946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:36:04.225041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:24.298023
License: Public Domain

ROSENN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I have grave reservations that the findings of the district court with respect to the absence of malpractice in the intrathecal injection of methylene blue into the appellant’s spinal column and the presence of an informed consent by him to the surgical procedure were not clearly erroneous. I would not reach these issues in the disposition of this case, however, since the appellant’s action for damages is unfortunately barred by the two year statute of limita*258tions of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Like the majority, I am persuaded that before September 29, 1965, appellant discovered or reasonably should have discovered the acts constituting such alleged malpractice. Cf. Tyminski v. United States, 481 F.2d 257 (3d Cir., 1973). I therefore concur.