In the case of Mark Rotella v. Angela M. Wood, et al., 1999, Rotella sued various health care providers and pharmaceutical companies for alleged violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the four-year statute of limitations under RICO begins when a plaintiff discovers an injury or when they discover both an injury and its cause. The court held that the "injury discovery" rule applies in civil RICO cases which means that the clock starts ticking on filing a lawsuit once plaintiffs know they have been harmed, regardless if they know who caused it or not. This decision was based on their interpretation of Congress's intent in drafting this law as well as precedent from other similar cases involving different laws with similar language about statutes of limitation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mark Rotella v. Angela M. Wood, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying Rotella's claim for damages under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was incorrect. The dissenters believed that the statute of limitations should not have begun until Rotella discovered his injury and its cause, rather than when he first suffered harm. They contended that this interpretation is more consistent with Congress' intent when it enacted RICO - to provide broad remedies for victims of racketeering activity - as well as with common law principles regarding discovery of harm in fraud cases. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that allowing claims based on late-discovered injuries would undermine predictability and stability in litigation; instead, they suggested such an approach could encourage prompt investigation by potential plaintiffs while still providing adequate protection against stale claims.