prove a set of facts establishing that he suffered no actual injury until within the applicable f ing that legal injury resulting from allegedly unnecessary performance of hysterectomy occurred on date hysterectomy was performed); Mobile Infirmary v. Delchamps, 642 So.2d 954, 958 (Ala.1994)(noting that “[w]hether [Delchamps’s] claims are barred by § 6-5-482 depends on when in fact she first suffered the alleged legal injury, i.e., bone degeneration in her jaw. Delchamps’s complaint, as presently amended, alleges the date of which the implant was placed in her jaw and the date on which she first became aware of the alleged injury to her jaw. The key fact not alleged is the time when Delchamps first suffered the alleged bone degeneration.”); Grabert v. Lightfoot, 571 So.2d 293 (Ala.1990)(<HOLDING>); and Jones v. McDonald, 631 So.2d 869
holding that statute of limitations began to run on patients medicalmalpractice action against surgeon after first operation during which surgeon failed to locate hernia even though full extent of patients injury was not known until second operation 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 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 recognizing that the statute of limitations for a survival action began to run on the date of the decedents injury as though he was bringing his own lawsuit holding that the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice may begin to run before the plaintiff knows the full extent of his damages