SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Cote, /.), dismissing their suit on the grounds that it was untimely under the two-year statute of limitations set forth in the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history. Although the parties raised some question as to whether the statute of limitations in the FTCA is jurisdictional, we need not address the issue here because it does not affect our decision.
Under the FTCA, “[t]he diligence-discovery rule sets the accrual date at the time when, with reasonable diligence, the plaintiff has or ... should have discovered the critical facts of both his injury and its cause.” A.Q.C. ex rel. Castillo v. United States, 656 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Valdez ex rel. Donely v. United States, 518 F.3d 173, 177 (2d Cir.2008). In this case, the district court held a hearing during which it heard testimony and argument.
The court found that Plaintiffs-Appellants were aware of the critical facts of the injury and of the possibility of iatrogenic harm shortly after Jeremiah Dominguez’s birth. The court’s findings that Plaintiffs were aware of the critical facts of the injury and of a possible iatrogenic harm prior to February 12, 2007 were not clearly erroneous. In addition, Plaintiffs forfeited any argument that equitable tolling applies. See Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610, 613 n. 1 (2d Cir.2001); Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 197 F.3d 58, 61-62 (2d Cir.1999).
We therefore affirm the court’s dismissal of the complaint pursuant to the FTCA’s statute of limitations. Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Appellants’ suit, their motion for
summary reversal is hereby DENIED. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.