Logourl black
From our private database of 13,000+ case briefs...

United States v. Kubrick

United States Supreme Court
444 U.S. 111 (1979)


Facts

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) permits an individual to sue a federal agency in court as long as certain requirements are met. Among these statutory prerequisites are certain statutes of limitations, including a two-year statute regarding medical malpractice claims. In 1968, Kubrick (plaintiff) underwent surgery in a Veteran’s Administration (VA) hospital (defendant) for an infection in his right femur. Part of the treatment involved the administration of the antibiotic neomycin. Shortly after surgery, Kubrick noticed a ringing sensation in his ear coupled with loss of hearing. In January of 1969, an ear specialist diagnosed Kubrick with bilateral nerve deafness and indicated that condition might have been caused by his neomycin treatment. Kubrick went on to make multiple requests for adjustments to his VA pension, all of which were denied. In 1971, and while appealing the VA’s denial of benefit adjustment, Kubrick became aware that his original ear doctor believed that the neomycin should never have been administered to Kubrick in the first place. This prompted Kubrick to sue for medical malpractice. The government argued that the claim had accrued in 1969, when Kubrick became aware of the condition and its cause. Kubrick argued that the statute of limitations should begin tolling in 1971, when he was made aware of the legal implications of the treatment. The district court ruled for Kubrick. The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed. The government appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 129,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,000 briefs, keyed to 177 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.