Orlikow v. U.S.
Cite as 682 F.S. 77 .(D.D.C. 1988)
85
triggered the statute of limitations, the Court cannot hold as
a matter of law that there was notice. See Hobson v. Wilson, 737
F.2d 1, 38-39 (D.C.Cir.1984), cert. de-nied Brennan v. Hobson,
470 U.S. 1084, 105 S.Ct. 1843, 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985). Newspaper
articles containing allegations do not necessarily place citizens
on notice when there is no evidence that these arti-cles were
read. When six of the plaintiffs heard or read of the CIA funding
they initiated suit within the requisite time period. The extent
of the articles reach, the popularity of the paper, the abilitv
of the plaintiffs to follow daily public ev'ents, especially
under the circumstances of this case, are all issues difficult to
discern at this posture. This Court declines to hold that the
facts submitted somehow place a duty on these plaintiffs to have
read the applicable articles. Without actual notice or without
having read the articles it would go too far to state that the
statute of limitations began to run when the articles were
published.' The trier of fact must resolve the issue of diligence
and notice. Hobson v. Wilson, 737 F.2d at 38-39, n. 116, n. 118.
This conclusion specifically involves the arguments against
plaintiffs Mrs. Stadler, Mrs. Huard, Mr. Logie and Mr. Page, Mrs.
Zimmerman and Mrs. Langleben. There is no evidence suggesting
that these plaintiffs had notice prior to the dates they have
submitted. Plaintiffs Dr.Morrow and Mr. Weinstein must be
considered separately because they filed claims more than two
years from the dates they claimed to have had actual notice.
131 Plaintiff Weinstein filed his FTCA claim on February 4, 1983.
When he entered Dr. Cameron's care he was suffering from anxiety
manifested by certain physica] ailments. He was left physically
and mentally impaired after "treatment". An affidavit
executed by Dr. Harvey Weinstein, plaintiff's son who is a
psychiatrist, states that his father received LSD, various
unmarketed experimental drugs, 65 electroconvulsive shocks, drug
induced sleep for 54 days and sensory deprivation along with
psychic driving. In his medical opinion his father suffrs from
chronic organic brain syndrome as a direct consequence of
Cameron's treatment. This problem has left plaintiff with a
deficit in information processing that inhibits his ability to
understand facts and make decisions. Furthermore, Dr. Weinstein
claims that he read about the CIA funding in an article about
John Mark's book and feared that his father's condition was too
fragile to broach the subject. After informing his mother, the
information was conveyed to Mr. Weinstein who became very upset
and was unable to discuss it. Not until some time later did Dr.
Weinstein begin to broach the subject again gently and ultimately
sup-ported Mr. Weinstein in joining the ongoing lawsuit.
Plaintiff's Opposition Exhibit 16.
Defendant contends that plaintiff Weinstein admitted in
deposition that he learned of the CIA involvement from the Marks
book and after reading a newspaper article.
Q. Okay. Your Interrogatory answers state that you learned in the
1980 about the Marks book. Does that sound right to you, timewise.
A. Well I couldn't tell you exactly. I wouldn't know just when it
was. That's impossible for me to know. I don't know,
Q. How did you learn about Mrs. Orlikow's lawsuit, the one that
you are currently a member of?
A. It was in the paper, the newspaper.
Q. Do you recall what was said in the newspaper?
A. No I don't know what was said. I read it at the time, but I
don't know. I don't recall what was said.
Q. ... What I'm trying to figure out is how you had your own
lawsuit against the-
footnote 9. It would be a difficult task indeed to deter.
mine how many articles and from what source would accurately
reflect whether a story was " public knowledge". With
the room for error in journalism or the possibility that an
article may not reflect a complete story, it is fruitless to say
in hindsight that a newsworthy article should have been read or
only a citizen who combs the newspapers for public stories can
constitute a diligent plaintiff.