Frank Norris v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Frank Norris v. United States

423 F.2d 695, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10194

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 1970

Docket23304_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 423 F.2d 695 (Frank Norris v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank Norris v. United States, 423 F.2d 695, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10194 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, in pro per, appeals from a judgment against him entered in the district court on his Federal Tort Claim action for alleged medical malpractice of defendant’s employees, as a result of which appellant alleged he had sustained diabetes mellitus and other physical injuries. The district court found that appellant’s diabetes mellitus was not caused by the medical treatment rendered by defendant’s employees, and that there was no negligence in the medical treatment they did render him. (Detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; C.T. p. 48, et seq.)

Appellant here (1) urges us to re-examine the contradictory evidence introduced below, (2) consider certain facts “he was not allowed to bring out in the lower court,” and (3) to rule that *696 the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to his case as a matter of law.'

The first two requests we cannot grant under well recognized appellate court rules and law. The third calls upon us to make a legal ruling on facts which would not support such a ruling. As appellant himself states:

“Here we have an injury which is very rare. It is an injury that could result from negligence or could result without negligence.” (Appellant’s Brief, Continuance of Facts and Laws”. — p. 2, lines 17 to 19.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, in pro per, appeals from a judgment against him entered in the district court on his Federal Tort Claim action for alleged medical malpractice of defendant’s employees, as a result of which appellant alleged he had sustained diabetes mellitus and other physical injuries. The district court found that appellant’s diabetes mellitus was not caused by the medical treatment rendered by defendant’s employees, and that there was no negligence in the medical treatment they did render him. (Detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; C.T. p. 48, et seq.)

Appellant here (1) urges us to re-examine the contradictory evidence introduced below, (2) consider certain facts “he was not allowed to bring out in the lower court,” and (3) to rule that *696 the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable to his case as a matter of law.'

The first two requests we cannot grant under well recognized appellate court rules and law. The third calls upon us to make a legal ruling on facts which would not support such a ruling. As appellant himself states:

“Here we have an injury which is very rare. It is an injury that could result from negligence or could result without negligence.” (Appellant’s Brief, Continuance of Facts and Laws”. — p. 2, lines 17 to 19.)

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

423 F.2d 695, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-norris-v-united-states-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack