test. Even assuming this to be true, there is no evidence that Murphy’s latex allergy was unknowable before her visit to Dr. DuBuske in 1995. The existence of latex allergies was certainly not unknown to the medical community in 1993. See Starer v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2003 WL 21918885 at *3 (D.Mass. Aug.12, 2003) (“the medical community was aware of the existence of latex sensitivity as early as 1988”). Murphy’s subjective unawareness of the phenomenon of allergy to latex will not toll the statute of limitations. Murphy further claims that the statute of limitations was tolled because defendants labeled the gloves “hypoallergenic” and thus fraudulently concealed the fact that their gloves could cause latex allergy. This claim also fails. Estoppel will 8885 (D.Mass. Aug.12, 2003)(<HOLDING>); Gray v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, 2001 WL
holding as a matter of law that when condition precedent clear on the face of the insurance policy had not been met before insolvency trustee had no cause of action because none had accrued before bankruptcy holding that the cause of action accrued on the date of sale holding that cause of action against latex glove manufacturers accrued when plaintiff first suspected a latex allergy holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal holding that cause of action accrued before formal diagnosis of latex allergy when plaintiff had previously suspected that she might be allergic to latex