Valdez Ex Rel. Donely 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.

• recognizing that tolling only “permits a plaintiff to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations if despite all due diligence he is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim”
• holding that FTCA claim accrued no later than the date legal advice was sought but remanding for further proceedings “because the record is silent with respect to the circumstances that led [the infant’s mother] to seek legal assistance”
• recognizing court’s discretion to review unpreserved issue to remedy obvious misapplication of law
• “Equitable tolling is frequently confused both with fraudulent concealment on the one hand and with the discovery rule–governing . . . accrual–on the other.”
• “A claim under the [FTCA] accrues on the date that a plaintiff discovers that he has been injured.”
• the statute of limitations begins to run “when a reasonably diligent person (in the tort claimant’s position) reacting to any suspicious circumstances of which he might have been aware would have discovered” that the injury might be related to medical malpractice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).