are to be divided into classes: those who do not know that they have been injured and those who know they have suffered an injury but do not know that it is attributable to the fault of another. Lopez, supra, 62 N.J. at 274, 300 A.2d 563. When a plaintiffs claim falls within the latter class her cause of action does not accrue until she has knowledge of the injury and that such injury is the fault of another. In many cases, knowledge of fault is acquired simultaneously with knowledge of injury. Fault is apparent, for example, where the wrong tooth is extracted during surgery. Tramutola v. Bortone, 118 N.J.Super. 503, 512-13, 288 A.2d 863 (App.Div.1972), or where a foreign object has been left within the body after an operation. See Fernandi, supra, 35 N.J. at 438, 173 A.2d 277 (<HOLDING>). In other cases, however, a plaintiff may be
recognizing that under the discovery rule a cause of action accrues thereby triggering the limitations period when the patient discovers or should have discovered that he or she has a cause of action holding that period of limitations on a patients negligence cause of action began to run when the patient knew or had reason to know about the foreign object left in her body holding that the limitations period for  1983 actions arising in ohio is the twoyear period found in ohio rev code  230510 and that the limitations period starts to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of his action  holding that statute of limitations for malpractice begins to run when plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the alleged malpractice holding that patient suffered actionable legal injury and period of repose began to run when physician left hemostat clamp in patients body regardless of when or to what extent the complications from the negligent act would be discovered