MacMillan v. United States

Citation: Not availableDocket: 94-60276

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; February 15, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Vickie MacMillan, representing herself and her daughter Tanya Lee, filed a lawsuit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that negligent actions by Air Force physicians during Tanya's birth at Keesler Air Force Base Hospital resulted in neurological damage. The government sought summary judgment, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired, which the district court upheld, leading to a ruling in favor of the government. 

The case background notes that Tanya was born on November 23, 1975, under dire circumstances, including being born with the umbilical cord around her neck and requiring artificial ventilation. Initial assessments indicated severe health risks, including a high likelihood of severe retardation and potential death. Fortunately, Tanya showed signs of recovery after 48 hours and was eventually discharged from the hospital, though her long-term prognosis remained uncertain. 

Post-birth, Tanya continued to face health challenges, including seizures, which were managed with phenobarbital. MacMillan was instructed to monitor Tanya's development through regular clinic visits, where her developmental progress was tracked. Despite some improvements, Tanya's development was delayed, prompting enrollment in speech therapy by 1977.

Tanya faced ongoing difficulties during her schooling, prompting her teacher, MacMillan, to request an evaluation for a potential learning disability, which went unaddressed for several years. In July 1988, MacMillan took Tanya to clinical psychologist Dr. William Gasparrini, who conducted a psychological evaluation. Dr. Gasparrini reported that Tanya had a challenging birth, described as a "blue baby" with anoxia leading to possible neurological damage. He diagnosed her with Mild Mental Retardation and a significant affective disorder, specifically Dysthymia. MacMillan acknowledged that Tanya's early developmental issues were likely linked to her birth complications and medication.

In December 1988, after persistent requests, the Biloxi school system evaluated Tanya through school psychologist Dr. Anthony W. Pollard, who incorrectly noted details about her birth but concluded she likely suffered from anoxia and neurological damage. In June 1989, graduate student Victoria Henning conducted tests on Tanya and recommended a neurologist evaluation. Following this, neurologist Dr. Joe Jackson performed an MRI and EEG, discovering old brain scarring related to Tanya's birth.

MacMillan filed an administrative complaint on July 2, 1991, followed by a lawsuit against the United States on September 3, 1992. The government sought summary judgment, arguing that the evidence, including MacMillan's deposition and the psychologists' evaluations, indicated that the statute of limitations had expired, thus claiming the court lacked jurisdiction.

The district court ruled that the government's motion was valid, determining that the two-year statute of limitations for MacMillan's claim had lapsed. MacMillan was aware of her child's neurological injury and its cause due to delivery complications, such as oxygen deprivation at birth. She appeals, asserting that the court mistakenly concluded the limitations period expired prior to her claim. The failure to file an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is deemed a jurisdictional defect, as established in *Zavala v. United States*. The standard for reviewing the summary judgment is de novo, meaning the appellate court will apply the same criteria as the district court while considering the applicable law and factual issues. The reviewing court must assess evidence favorably towards the nonmoving party and determine if there are genuine issues of material fact that warrant a trial. Under the FTCA, tort claims against the United States must be presented within two years of their accrual, and this period is not extended due to the plaintiff's minority, as a parent's knowledge of the injury is attributed to the child.

In medical malpractice cases, the statute of limitations does not begin until the plaintiff is aware of the injury and its cause. This principle is supported by several cases, including Waits v. United States and Kubrick v. United States, which state that a plaintiff need not understand the legal or medical significance of an injury for the cause of action to accrue. Instead, the limitations period starts when a reasonable person would conclude there is a causal link between the treatment and the injury or would seek professional advice leading to that conclusion. The Supreme Court emphasized that plaintiffs must act diligently to seek medical or legal advice once they have knowledge of the relevant facts. 

In the case at hand, Dr. Pollard's report indicated that Tanya likely suffered from anoxia at birth, providing sufficient grounds for a reasonable person to seek further medical or legal consultation. Consequently, MacMillan's cause of action accrued no later than February 1989 when she received this report. Claims that the government concealed information or that reliance on medical personnel's statements delayed the accrual of her claim were rejected. No evidence suggested that relevant information about Tanya's birth was withheld, and despite MacMillan's reliance on initial medical assessments, Dr. Pollard's report constituted a correct diagnosis, triggering the statute of limitations. Therefore, the district court's decision is affirmed.