Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patricia MARKLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1783
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 27, 2017
    Decided: October 10, 2017
    Christopher T. Nace, PAULSON & NACE, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. William J. Ihlenfield, II, United States Attorney, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, Martins-burg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and Raymond A. JACKSON, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patricia Markle sued the United States for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671-2680 (2012), for injuries following a medical procedure. Markle claimed the United States was negligent in administering a Depo-Provera injection which caused her to develop Nicolau syndrome and subsequently led to avascular necrosis in her right arm and shoulder. Following a bench trial, the district court held that the United States’ negligence caused Mar-kle’s Nicolau syndrome, but not the avas-cular necrosis. Markle challenges the factual findings of the district court and the amount of damages she was awarded following trial.

On appeal, factual findings may only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous. Williams v. Sandman, 187 F.3d 379, 381 (4th Cir. 1999). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. Likewise, the calculation of damages is a finding of fact and is reviewed for clear error, but to the extent those calculations were influenced by legal error, review is de novo. United States ex rel. Maddux Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 86 F.3d 332, 334 (4th Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

Applying these standards, we reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.