Joseph Osborn and Pamela Osborn, Individually and as Father and Mother and Guardians Ad Litem of Shawna Osborn v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an injured child’s FTCA claim could not have accrued when the child’s doctors “had not yet reached a conclusion” as to the cause of the child’s injury
• noting that, post-Kubrick, question is when the plaintiff actually knew or in exercise of reasonable diligence should have known cause and existence of injury
• explaining that \an injured plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of the discovery rule simply by waiting passively for the cause of injury to be revealed\
• noting that plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction exists in a 12(b)(1) factual attack
• noting that compliance with the statute of limitations is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the Federal Torts Claims Act and applying Rule 12(b)(1) standards to plaintiff's burden to prove the jurisdictional requirement
• observing that “an injured plaintiff cannot claim the benefit of the discovery rule simply by waiting passively for the cause of injury to be revealed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).