run until the plaintiff has “(1) knowledge or sufficient notice that she was harmed and (2) knowledge or sufficient notice of what the cause of harm was.” Doe v. Harbor Sch., Inc., 63 Mass.App.Ct. 337, 343 (2005) (quoting Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 408 Mass. 204, 208 (1990)). In this case, BMC has pled the statute of limitations as a defense to Martin’s claim. The issue therefore is whether Martin discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, both his psychological injuries and the cause of those injuries, at some point more than three years before the filing of this lawsuit in 2004. Martin first bears the burden of proving that he did not discover, nor should he have reasonably discovered, his alleged injuries until July of 2002. See Riley v. Presnell, 409 Mass. 239, 243-44 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Next, Martin bears the burden of “proving
holding that the plaintiff bears the burden to show that the defendant acted with intent to deceive holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the defendant bears the burden under plainerror review holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal