Thomas D. Newberry v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Thomas D. Newberry v. United States

554 F.2d 708, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1189, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12796

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided June 22, 1977·No. 76-4061·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This malpractice claim arose under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2674 et seq. (1970), and alleges improper prescription of birth control pills resulting in circulatory disorders. Judge Christenberry of the Eastern District of Louisiana heard the case, but he passed away before he could deliver decision. Decision was rendered by Judge Schwartz on the basis of the transcript and record. The district court held that there was insufficient evidence of malpractice, and of causation, to sustain plaintiffs’ claim.

We note initially that even though the deciding judge had not personally heard the testimony delivered, we employ the clearly erroneous standard of review. See United States v. Ironworkers Local 86, 443 F.2d 544 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 984, 92 S.Ct. 447, 30 L.Ed.2d 367 (1971); Summers v. Watkins Motor Lines, 323 F.2d 120 (4 Cir. 1963).

After carefully considering the voluminous record and transcript, we hold that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, 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:

This malpractice claim arose under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2674 et seq. (1970), and alleges improper prescription of birth control pills resulting in circulatory disorders. Judge Christenberry of the Eastern District of Louisiana heard the case, but he passed away before he could deliver decision. Decision was rendered by Judge Schwartz on the basis of the transcript and record. The district court held that there was insufficient evidence of malpractice, and of causation, to sustain plaintiffs’ claim.

We note initially that even though the deciding judge had not personally heard the testimony delivered, we employ the clearly erroneous standard of review. See United States v. Ironworkers Local 86, 443 F.2d 544 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 984, 92 S.Ct. 447, 30 L.Ed.2d 367 (1971); Summers v. Watkins Motor Lines, 323 F.2d 120 (4 Cir. 1963).

After carefully considering the voluminous record and transcript, we hold that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Thomas D. Newberry v. United States, 554 F.2d 708, 23 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1189, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12796 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

554 F.2d 708 (Thomas D. Newberry v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related