WORLD Law Direct Forums
Home > WORLD Law Direct Forums > FORUM INFORMATION > Law News > 8th Cir: Statute of Limitations Bars Switched-At-Birth Lawsuit

8th Cir: Statute of Limitations Bars Switched-At-Birth Lawsuit

This is a discussion on 8th Cir: Statute of Limitations Bars Switched-At-Birth Lawsuit within the Law News forum, part of the FORUM INFORMATION category; Granted, it was 15 years ago, but our memory of our first-year civil procedure class is that we spent a ...

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply

 

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 22nd, 2008, 05:30 PM   #1
News
 
WSJ Law Blog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,862

Default 8th Cir: Statute of Limitations Bars Switched-At-Birth Lawsuit



Granted, it was 15 years ago, but our memory of our first-year civil procedure class is that we spent a full three months talking about statutes of limitations. We’re sure we talked about Rules 12, 23 and 56, but we don’t remember that — just stuff like if a surgeon leaves an entire place-setting in someones abdominal cavity, but the patient doesn’t experience pain until 10 years later and doesn’t find the can until 20 years later, can he still bring a lawsuit?

We were reminded of those days while reading an 8th Circuit opinion today with, well, a set of facts as zany as that of the zaniest law-school hypo. (Hat tip: How Appealing) The suit, brought by two women and one of the women’s fathers, claims that the two women were switched at birth. Literally — that the women, both born on July 27, 1946 in a North Dakota hospital, were, due to the negligence of the United States, sent home with the wrong mothers. Each woman brought a claim against the U.S. under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Thing is, the administrative claims weren’t filed until 2002 and 2004, too late for redress. Stated the court: “A claim generally accrues when a plaintiff is injured, although in ‘a diverse array of tort claims,’ there is authority that a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff ‘knows or reasonably should know of both an injury?s existence and its cause.’ The court ruled that the women should have known or had reason to know they were switched at birth more than two years prior to the filings, based on inklings the women had as early as 1973.

Wrote the court: “Here, the plaintiffs could have discovered the basis for their claims well before September 2000 by conducting a diligent inquiry once they had reason to develop suspicions about the accuracy of the doctor?s statement. As difficult as that process might have been for a father and daughter who were matched by a hospital at the time of birth, the law requires this level of investigation by a party who wishes to sue the United States under the FTCA.”

Photo: iStockPhoto

Last edited by top_admin; Jul 22nd, 2008 at 11:35 PM.
WSJ Law Blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark & Share



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

| More

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Format Your Messages
Add Forum to Google Toolbar
Forum Jump

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Statute of Limitations - Minnesota Unregistered Small Claims Courts 0 Jan 19th, 2010 02:28 PM
Statute of limitations for ohio ramosa Other Criminal Law Matters 6 Aug 13th, 2009 11:08 PM
statute of limitations-MA Unregistered Other Criminal Law Matters 1 Jan 29th, 2009 02:18 AM
Had Lawsuit filed against me one week before the Statute of Limitations was up... followthewhiterabbit Car Accident Claims 3 Aug 8th, 2008 04:10 PM
Statute of limitations in California? Unregistered Debt Collection 1 Jun 23rd, 2007 02:02 PM


Top crime attorneys


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:25 AM.