the May 12, 2000 meeting and Nazzaro’s representation that the plaintiff specifically asked Doherty and Johnson about Martorano. Compare M. Callahan Aff. ¶ 22 and R. Nazzaro Aff. ¶ 7 with R. Nazzaro Aff. ¶ 8. I interpret these statements as alleging that Doherty and Johnson did not "mention” Martorano’s name until the plaintiff raised the issue. 15 . The plaintiff did not indicate the agency O'Rourke represented. 16 . After the parties in this case briefed the statute of limitations issue, the First Circuit dispelled any remaining doubt that the discovery rule applies to all FTCA claims-not just those for medical malpractice. See Cascone, 370 F.3d at 104; McIntyre v. United States, 367 F.3d 38, 52 (1st Cir.2004); Skwira, 344 F.3d at 74-75. 17 . See also Skwira, 344 F.3d at 82 n. 18 (<HOLDING>); Gonzalez, 284 F.3d at 289 ("[T]he limitations
holding that the district where the defendant attorneys office was located was the proper venue because the defendants omissions related to their failure to communicate from their office in savannah the details of the ongoing case recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding that defendants mailing of false recommendation letters to us attorneys office on behalf of another defendant was covered by  1001 because facts presented a unique setting and one illsuited to regulation through the perjury statutes and because sentencing recommendations are within jurisdiction of us attorneys office holding that the plaintiffs administrative claims were not timely presented and noting that the fact that the decedents family decided to place their trust in the us attorneys office electing not to seek competent legal advice until much later does not alter that conclusion holding that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to attorneys fees for successfully securing a remand of the attorneys fees issue because the ruling was unrelated to the merits of the plaintiffs claim and the issue was not significant nor a benefit the plaintiffs sought in bringing their action