WORLD Law Direct Forums  





Go Back   WORLD Law Direct Forums > Forum Information > Law News
REGISTER FAQ SEARCH Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Personal Lawyer Legal Forms Calendar

Law News Breaking law news and events.

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

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply
AddThis Feed Button
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 22nd, 2008, 04:30 PM     #1
News
 
WSJ_law_blog's Avatar
 
Last Online:
Jul 16th, 2008 11:37 AM
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog
Posts: 640

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 10:35 PM.
WSJ_law_blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Add Forum to Google Toolbar | Format Your Messages

Posting Rules

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
statute of limitations-MA Unregistered Other Criminal Law Matters 0 Oct 29th, 2008 09:15 PM
Statute Of Limitations In California? LisaLaMunyon Civil Litigation 1 Aug 12th, 2008 05:29 PM
Had Lawsuit filed against me one week before the Statute of Limitations was up... followthewhiterabbit Car Accident Claims 3 Aug 8th, 2008 03:10 PM
Statute of Limitations (SOL) Unregistered Debt Collection 3 Jan 17th, 2008 08:49 PM
Statute of limitations in California? Unregistered Debt Collection 1 Jun 23rd, 2007 01:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 AM.


Powered by U.S. Legal Forms

Subscribe

Use of the Forums is subject to our Disclaimer which prohibits unapproved advertisements, solicitations or other commercial messages, and false, harassing or abusive statements. All postings reflect the views of the author but become the property of WORLD Law Direct.

Questions and information submitted in the Forums are assumed inquiries for general information and not legal advice.

Copyright 2000-2009 by WORLDLawDirect.com, Inc.