## Facts

- From September 1945 through at least May 30, 1947, pregnant women receiving prenatal care at Vanderbilt were given drinks containing radioactive iron isotopes as part of the Tennessee–Vanderbilt Nutrition Project.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were not told the drinks contained radioactive material, were not informed of risks, and were not permitted to refuse participation.
- The project involved coordinated work among Vanderbilt personnel and the Tennessee Department of Public Health, including shared facilities and collaboration.
- The Rockefeller Foundation allegedly funded the project, placed personnel in leadership roles, and influenced project rules and direction.
- Vanderbilt later conducted follow-up studies on participants and their children; plaintiffs alleged defendants did not disclose exposure, risks, or follow-up results.
- Plaintiffs alleged they did not learn of the experiments and related risks until decades later, after public attention to historical radiation experiments in the 1990s.
- Plaintiffs asserted federal civil-rights claims (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and a Bivens-type constitutional claim) and various Tennessee tort theories based on lack of informed consent and concealment.

## Issues

1. Whether Vanderbilt and the Rockefeller Foundation could be treated as state actors for federal civil-rights liability based on joint activity or a symbiotic relationship with Tennessee public-health authorities.
2. Whether federal and state claims were time-barred, or whether the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment created triable tolling issues.
3. Whether Tennessee’s medical-malpractice statute of repose barred the claims as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court denied Vanderbilt’s and the Rockefeller Foundation’s motions to dismiss or for summary judgment.
- On state action, the court found genuine disputes of material fact as to joint participation and a potentially symbiotic relationship between Vanderbilt and the State, and as to the Rockefeller Foundation’s asserted control and oversight role.
- On timeliness, the court found factual disputes regarding when plaintiffs discovered or should have discovered the injury and its cause, and whether defendants’ conduct fraudulently concealed material facts.
- The court declined to hold the claims barred by the medical-malpractice statute of repose at this stage, reasoning that the conduct was plausibly characterized as research experimentation rather than therapeutic medical treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Private entities may be subject to § 1983 liability when the challenged conduct is fairly attributable to the state, including through joint participation with state officials or a symbiotic relationship requiring fact-intensive inquiry.
- For § 1983 and § 1985 actions, federal courts borrow the forum state’s personal-injury limitations period; accrual and tolling are governed by doctrines such as the discovery rule where injury and causation may be latent.
- Under Tennessee law, the discovery rule may delay accrual until a plaintiff knows or reasonably should know of the injury and its cause, and the timing of such knowledge can present a jury question.
- Fraudulent concealment may toll limitations where a defendant’s concealment prevents discovery of material facts needed to file suit; whether concealment occurred and caused delay may require fact-finding.
- A statute of repose directed to medical malpractice does not automatically apply where the alleged wrong is plausibly research experimentation rather than treatment within a conventional doctor–patient framework.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the case to proceed because the record presented triable factual disputes over whether defendants’ conduct could be treated as state action and whether limitations periods were tolled by delayed discovery and alleged concealment, and it could not conclude as a matter of law that a medical-malpractice repose statute barred the claims.


Craft v. Vanderbilt Univ., 18 F. Supp. 2d 786 (M.D. Tenn. 1998)