United States v. Kubrick

444 U.S. 111 (1979)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Leonard Kubrick (plaintiff), after being treated at a VA hospital (defendant), suffered hearing loss potentially due to medical malpractice. He filed a claim against the VA hospital after being informed that his treatment could have been negligent.

The issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether Kubrick’s claim was time-barred under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Court concluded that the statute of limitations began when Kubrick knew of his injury and its cause, making his claim untimely.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Leonard Kubrick (plaintiff) was a veteran who underwent surgery at a Veteran’s Administration (VA) hospital (defendant) for an infection. During treatment, he was administered the antibiotic neomycin, after which he experienced a loss of hearing. Kubrick was diagnosed with bilateral nerve deafness, which was potentially linked to the neomycin treatment.

Although he had this knowledge in January 1969, it wasn’t until June 1971 that Kubrick was informed by his ear doctor that the drug should not have been used, indicating possible medical malpractice.

Kubrick had previously sought adjustments to his VA pension due to his hearing loss but was denied. The denial was based on the assertion that there was no negligence on the part of the government. It wasn’t until after the conversation with his ear doctor that Kubrick considered the legal implications and pursued a medical malpractice lawsuit against the VA hospital.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Kubrick filed a medical malpractice claim against the VA hospital.
  2. The district court ruled in favor of Kubrick, stating that the statute of limitations began when Kubrick became aware of the legal implications of his treatment.
  3. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s decision.
  4. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act begins when a plaintiff knows the existence and cause of his injury or when he also knows that the acts inflicting the injury may constitute medical malpractice.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

The Federal Tort Claims Act requires that a claim be presented in writing within two years after such claim accrues. A claim is considered to accrue when a plaintiff knows both the existence and the cause of his injury, not necessarily when he knows of the potential medical malpractice.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The Supreme Court analyzed the purpose of statutes of limitations, emphasizing their role in encouraging prompt presentation of claims and protecting defendants from stale claims where evidence may be lost over time. The Court found no substantial basis in the language or legislative history of the Federal Tort Claims Act to support delaying the accrual of a claim until a plaintiff knows about potential medical malpractice.

Furthermore, it was determined that once a plaintiff is aware of their injury and its cause, they have the means to seek advice and ascertain whether they have been wronged. The Court concluded that Congress did not intend for ‘accrual’ to await a plaintiff’s realization that their injury was negligently inflicted.

Thus, Kubrick’s claim was time-barred as he did not file within two years of becoming aware of his injury and its cause.


Conclusion Icon

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, concluding that Kubrick’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it had accrued in January 1969 when he became aware of his injury and its cause, not in June 1971 when he was informed of possible medical malpractice.

Dissenting Opinions

Judge Icon

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall, dissented, arguing that the statute of limitations should not begin until a plaintiff is reasonably on notice of an invasion of legal rights, which in this case would be when Kubrick knew or should have suspected medical malpractice.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. A claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act accrues when a plaintiff knows both the existence and cause of his injury.
  2. The Supreme Court emphasizes promptness in presenting claims and does not extend accrual until knowledge of potential malpractice is gained.
  3. Statutes of limitations serve to protect against stale claims where evidence may no longer be reliable.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes 'discovery' of an injury for the purposes of starting a statute of limitations clock?

‘Discovery’ of an injury refers to the point at which a plaintiff has sufficient facts to become aware of both the existence and the cause of the harm suffered, even if unaware that it constitutes a legal injury.

  • For example: A person experiences a severe allergic reaction after taking a medication. The statute of limitations begins when they realize the reaction is linked to the medication, not when they learn the prescription may have been negligently filled.

How does a plaintiff's duty to investigate potential wrongs affect the accrual of a claim under statutes of limitations?

A plaintiff has a duty to investigate when suspecting harm, which may trigger the accrual of a claim once enough information is available to know of an injury and its likely cause. Failure to investigate can prevent tolling the statute of limitations.

  • For example: If someone slips and injures themselves in a store and suspects negligence due to a wet floor, they must investigate promptly. Statute of limitations starts from when they should have discovered the potential negligence, not from any formal acknowledgment by the store.

In what ways can statutes of limitations protect defendants and the integrity of legal proceedings?

Statutes of limitations protect defendants by preventing long-dormant claims where evidence might be lost or become less reliable over time, thereby promoting resolution while memories and records are fresh and ensuring fairness in litigation.

  • For example: A homeowner cannot bring a lawsuit against a builder for construction defects discovered twenty years later because evidence will likely be gone or unreliable, protecting builders from indefinite liability.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Civil Procedure