rule that the claim accrued when the plaintiffs “knew both the fact of injury and its immediate physical cause.” Id. at 487. The plaintiffs’ “ignorance of the involvement of United States employees is irrelevant” to determining when their claim accrues. Id.; accord Gould v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 905 F.2d 738, 743 n. 2, 745 (4th Cir.1990) (en banc) (discussing Dyniewicz and holding that the FTCA statute of limitations “does not wait until a plaintiff is aware that an alleged tort-feasor is a federal employee”); Zeleznik v. United States, 770 F.2d 20, 23 (3rd Cir.1985) (following Dyniewicz and holding that accrual of an FTCA claim is not delayed until the injured party learns of possible government liability); Steele v. United States, 599 F.2d 823, 827-28 (7th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we held that even the government’s
holding that disputed factual issue existed as to whether claimant knew or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have known prior to running of statute of limitations existence of compensable claim holding that inquiry notice triggers an investors duty to exercise reasonable diligence and that the  statute of limitations period begins to run once the investor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts underlying the alleged fraud holding that government did not suppress evidence when defendant knew about the existence of the evidence and could obtain it through the exercise of reasonable diligence holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims holding that the plaintiffs assertion that he neither knew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known about the governments possible liability for his injury was irrelevant to accrual of his ftca claim