Washington v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 28, 1999
Docket99-50143
StatusUnpublished

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

Bluebook
Washington v. United States, (5th Cir. 1999).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50143 Summary Calendar

ROBBIN E. L. WASHINGTON, JR.; GERALD WASHINGTON; LAVERNE W. RICHARDS; GERARD WASHINGTON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (97-CV-389-F) --------------------

October 27, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants appeal the summary judgment for the Government in

this Federal Tort Claims Act case. They argue that the district

court abused its discretion in determining that their expert’s

opinions on causation and various issues relating to the

colonoscopy performed on the decedent should be excluded under

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. The district court did not abuse its discretion. No

scientific basis was given for the expert’s causation opinion.

See Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 278 (5th Cir.

1998). The district court also did not err in determining that

the expert was not of the “same school of practice” as the

doctors who performed the colonoscopy. See Broders v. Heise, 924

S.W. 2d 148 (Tex. 1996). Because the appellants have not made a

sufficient showing on causation, an essential element of their

case, the district court did not err in granting the Government’s

motion for summary judgment. See Lujan v. National Wildlife

Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 884 (1990); Urbach v. United States, 869

F.2d 829, 831 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Moore v. Ashland Chemical Inc.
151 F.3d 269 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation
497 U.S. 871 (Supreme Court, 1990)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Broders v. Heise
924 S.W.2d 148 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Washington v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-united-states-ca5-1999.