Thomas D. Newberry v. United States, 554 F.2d 708 (5th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas D. Newberry v. United States, 554 F.2d 708 (5th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Thomas D. NEWBERRY Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
76-4061.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 22, 1977.
554 F.2d 708
George M. Papale, Gretna, La., for plaintiffs-appellants., Michaelle F. Pitard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U. S. Atty., Mary W. Cazalas, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Thornberry, Roney, Hill.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
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.