## Facts

- Kelly Ann Apgar alleged that, as an infant and toddler (1963–1964), she ingested tetracycline-based antibiotics manufactured by Lederle Laboratories, Pfizer, and Upjohn.
- She developed permanent discoloration of her teeth that persisted into adulthood.
- During elementary and middle school, Apgar’s dentist repeatedly told her the staining was attributable to tetracycline use in childhood.
- Apgar turned 18 on August 19, 1979.
- In 1985, she read a news article about a tetracycline tooth-discoloration lawsuit and first believed she might have a legal claim; she consulted an attorney that year.
- In 1986, she obtained dental records identifying Declomycin (a tetracycline drug) and other antibiotics and linking them to specific manufacturers.
- She filed suit in March 1988 asserting product-liability, failure-to-warn, negligence, breach of warranty, and statutory labeling/misbranding theories.
- Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the two-year limitations period (as tolled during minority) had expired; the trial court denied the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Apgar’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions as modified by minority tolling.
2. Whether the discovery rule delayed accrual beyond Apgar’s eighteenth birthday because she did not appreciate she had a legal claim until 1985–1986.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey (per curiam) reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment.
- The court held Apgar’s action was time-barred.
- The court ruled the discovery rule did not apply to delay accrual because Apgar knew, or reasonably should have known by age 18, both the injury (tooth discoloration) and its medical cause (tetracycline exposure).
- The court remanded for entry of summary judgment for defendants on statute-of-limitations grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A personal injury claim accrues, for discovery-rule purposes, when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury and facts suggesting its causal connection to another’s conduct or product.
- The discovery rule is not postponed until a plaintiff learns the legal significance of known facts, becomes aware that litigation is possible, or reads about similar lawsuits.
- Minority tolling ends at age 18; once the plaintiff reaches majority, the statutory period runs unless the plaintiff lacked reasonable knowledge of material facts supporting a claim.
- When undisputed facts show the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to trigger accrual more than two years before suit, summary judgment on limitations grounds is appropriate.

## Conclusion

The court held that long-standing knowledge of tooth discoloration and its connection to tetracycline was sufficient to start the limitations period at (or before) Apgar’s eighteenth birthday; her later realization that she might sue did not delay accrual, so the 1988 complaint was untimely.


Apgar v. Lederle Labs., 123 N.J. 450, 588 A.2d 380 (N.J. 1991)