United States v. Kubrick – Case Brief
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 100 S.Ct. 352, 62 L.Ed.2d 259 (1979).
Facts: Kubrick (P) underwent treatment for an infection of the right femur at a VA hospital in April 1968. After his release, Kubrick was diagnosed with bilateral nerve deafness by an ear specialist. A doctor suggested that the loss might have been due to the use of neomycin when the VA treated his right femur. Kubrick’s claim for increased benefits was denied, resubmitted, and denied again.
The VA later recognized that the hearing loss might have been caused by the use of the neomycin, but rejected P’s claim on the grounds that the treatment was in accord with accepted medical practices and procedures. P sued and judgment was entered in his favor, finding that P had no reason to suspect negligence until a conversation in June 1971. The court held that P’s claim accrued as of June 1971 and was well within the two-year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue: For statute of limitations purposes, does a tort claim accrue when a plaintiff learns that his injury was negligently inflicted?
Holding and Rule (White): No. A tort claim does not accrue for the purposes of the statute of limitations when a plaintiff learns that his injury was negligently inflicted.
The facts about causation of an injury may be unavailable to P or at least very difficult to obtain. When a plaintiff knows he has been hurt, there are others who can tell him if he has been wronged and he need only ask. The court held that under these facts, P need only have made inquiry to a doctor of average training to determine that he should not have been treated with neomycin under these circumstances.
Disposition: Reversed.
Dissent (Stevens): Normally a tort claim accrues at the time of injury but it is well settled that the normal rule does not apply to medical malpractice claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In medical malpractice cases the harsh consequences of the standard approach has been generally considered unacceptable. P exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to establish a medical basis for increased disability benefits. That diligence produced denials and even fabrications. The issue of diligence in a negligence case should be resolved by the finder of fact.