Does Actual Occurrence Of Cognizable Event Put Individual To Notice To Find Facts And Circumstances Related To Her Claim To Pursue Remedies ? In Flowers v. Walker, (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 589 N.E.2d 1284, the plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer. Flowers knew at the time of her diagnosis that her earlier mammogram was interpreted as negative. Accordingly, when she was diagnosed with a malignancy, "an occurrence of facts and circumstances had taken place which should have led Flowers to believe that her condition was related to previous diagnosis and treatment." Id. at 550. Thus, Flowers' malpractice statute began to run at that time of her diagnosis even though she did not know all the facts and circumstances surrounding the apparent misreading of her earlier mammogram. Id. The Ohio Supreme Court explained the manner in which we determine when a cognizable event actually occurs. It stated, "constructive knowledge of facts, rather than actual knowledge of their legal significance, is enough to start the statute of limitations running under the discovery rule. Rather, the 'cognizable event' itself puts the plaintiff on notice to investigate the facts and circumstances relevant to her claim in order to pursue her remedies." Id. at 549. Accordingly, once the cognizable event occurs, a potential plaintiff must investigate the circumstances relevant to his claim and diligently pursue any potential remedy. Simonds v. Kearney, 9th Dist. No. 01CA0035, 2002 Ohio 761, at P11.