surgery about which he had not been informed.  At that point, an unrevealed risk had materialized;  and, because the materialized risk had not been disclosed prior to surgery, any injury defined as the mere invasive touching without consent was also apparent.1  Mr. Gregory admits that he was aware of the unfortunate consequences of the surgery about which Dr. Poor had not warned him on October 29, 1990, shortly after the surgery.  Therefore, the district court properly dismissed as untimely the claim filed more than a year after October 29, 1990.


13
Mr. Gregory believes that his claim did not accrue until a physician informed him several months after the surgery, in January, 1991, that he should have been informed before the surgery of the possible consequencesof the procedure.  This misinterpretation of the "discovery rule" contends that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the victim discovers both the injury and its cause.  This is clearly incorrect.  Such a characterization of the discovery rule was flatly rejected by the Kentucky Supreme Court in McCollum v. Sisters of Charity, 799 S.W.2d 15 (Ky.1990).  McCollum involved the deaths of hospital patients due to, as it was revealed years after their deaths, the intentional acts of a hospital employee.  Although the decedents' representatives filed suit within one year of the employee's confession, the Kentucky Supreme Court found the actions untimely since the statute began to run at the time of the injury (death) and not at the discovery of