loss and its cause, not in 1971 when another physician confirmed that his hearing loss resulted from his treatment at the VA hospital. Id. at 122-23, 62 L. Ed. 2d at 269-70. The Court further stated: We . . . cannot hold that Congress intended that ‘accrual’ of a claim must wait awareness by the plaintiff that his injury was negligently inflicted. A plaintiff . . ., armed with facts about the harm done to him, can protect himself by seeking advice in the medical and legal community. To excuse him from promptly doing so by postponing the accrual of his claim would undermine the purpose of the limitations statute[.] Id. at 123, 62 L. Ed. 2d at 270. The Kubrick Court emphasized a claimant’s affirmative duty to investigate his injury with reasonable diligence. Id.; see also Albert at 544 (<HOLDING>); Fries at 1095 (holding an injured plaintiff
holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination holding that state could not deny unemployment compensation benefits to a jehovahs witness who terminated his employment because he believed his work in the production of a weaponsrelated product violated the principles of his religion holding once the plaintiff who had filed a fela claim concluded that he was injured and believed the injury was caused by his employment he had a duty to investigate the situation in order to confirm or deny his belief