Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05119/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

HAZEL SIRELLEN WATTS, as Special 

Administratrix of the Estate of 

Addison Luther Watts, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

~, I ~ - ~4 l.J 

United St:.lu . ~ !r .t-.J'~~2c 

Tenth circuit 

JAN 15"' {991 

ROBERT L. HOECKr · 

Clerk 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

(VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION), 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-5119 

(D.C. No. 88-C-1495-E) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant, as special administratrix of the estate of her 

deceased husband, appeals an adverse judgment entered by the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-5119 Document: 010110076393 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 1 
' 

in favor of the United States of America. This is an action 

brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act in which appel lant 

alleges that the decedent was seriously injured as a result of the 

negligent supervision of a fellow patient at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Muskogee, Oklahoma. 

During a portion of decedent's stay in the veteran's medical 

center, he shared his room with another patient. The decedent's 

roommate was subject to periods of acute and complete disorientation. At times, the patient would pull out various support 

apparatuses. This forced the hospital staff to restrain him using 

a cloth torso vest and soft wrist restraints. 

The roommate was nevertheless able to free himself from the 

restraints on May 2, 1987. He attacked the decedent with an 

unopened can of liquid food supplement. The decedent sustained 

several lacerations to his head. The decedent was later discharged from the hospital and transferred to a nursing home on 

May 11, 1987. He was subsequently treated and released twice for 

a recurrent urinary tract infection. 

After the decedent died, appellant instituted this action. 

She seeks pecuniary damages, as well as an award for pain and suffering, loss of consortium and death. 

The treating physician testified at trial that the roommate 

had not displayed any aggressive, violent or suicidal tendencies 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5119 Document: 010110076393 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 2 
prior to the incident on May 2, 1987. Appellant presented the 

roommates medical records, however, which contain a notation that 

the roommate attempted to kick a nurse with his right leg on April 

27, 1987. He also tried to kick off his covers. According to the 

notation, he was able to free his left arm from a wrist restraint 

and pull off the covers. 

After the district court reviewed the evidence presented by 

the parties, it issued its findings of fact and conclusions of 

law. Because it found that the appellees could not have reasonably foreseen that the decedent's roommate would have attacked 

him, the district court concluded that the appellee did not owe a 

duty to the decedent. Even if it were to find that the appellee 

owed the decedent a duty, the district court reasoned, the intentional attack by the roommate would be considered a supervening 

act. The district court also held that the doctrine of res ipsa 

loguitur, as codified in Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 76 § 21 (West 

1987), does not apply to the circumstances of this case. The district court also found t hat the attack on the decedent did not 

cause, contribute to, or accelerate his death; it concluded that 

the attack did not affect the decedent's neurological and mental 

status, which were already severely impaired. The district court 

then dismissed the action on the merits and assessed costs agai nst 

appellant. 

Appellant argues here that the district court committed 

reversible error by refusing to apply the doctrine of res ipsa 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5119 Document: 010110076393 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 3 
loguitur to the facts of the case. In addition, appellant argues 

that the district court abused its discretion by failing to properly weigh the evidence demonstrating appellee's failure to properly provide for the safety of its patients. 

When reviewing a suit brought pursuant to the Federal Tort 

Claims Act, we are bound by the district court's findings of fact 

unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). A 

finding is clearly erroneous when "the reviewing court on the 

entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that 

a mistake has been committed." Cowles v. Dow Keith Oil & Gas, 

Inc., 752 F.2d 508, 510 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 

816 (1986). We have reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions 

of law made by the trial court and conclude that the findings of 

fact are supported by substantial evidence. 

Moreover, we find no error in the district court's refusal to 

apply the doctrine of res ipsa loguitur to the facts of this case. 

The law of the state where the incident occurred applies to 

actions brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Holler 

v. United States, 724 F.2d 104, 105 (10th Cir. 1983). This court 

gives deference to the district court's interpretation of the 

state law in which it sits. Hauser v. Public Serv. Co., 797 F.2d 

876, 878 (10th Cir. 1986). 

Oklahoma law provides that: 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5119 Document: 010110076393 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 4 
In any action arising from negligence in the rendering 

of medical care, a presumption of negligence shall arise 

if the following foundation facts are first established: 

1. The plaintiff sustained any injury; 

2. Said injury was proximately caused by an 

instrumentality solely within the control of the 

defendant or defendants; and 

3. Such injury does not ordinarily occur under 

the circumstances absent negligence on the part of 

the defendant. 

Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 76 § 21 (West 1987). Appellant argues that 

the res ipsa loguitur doctrine is applicable here because appellee 

had control over the medical records and the hospital staff necessary to prove that the instrumentality of the injury--the 

decedent's roommate--was within the control of appellee. Appellant argues that because there was no outside proof available to 

her, she is entitled under Oklahoma law to a rebuttable presumpt i on that the decedent's injuries were proximately caused by the 

negligence of appellee. 

Appellant relies on St. John's Hospital & School of Nursing, 

Inc. v. Chapman, 434 P.2d 160 (Okla. 1967), to support her claim. 

There, the guardian of the person and estate of the injured party 

sued the defendant hospital under the doctrine of res ipsa 

loguitur. The plaintiff alleged that while plaintiff's ward was 

unconscious, her leg was broken when she was turned over in bed by 

a nurse's aide. The court held that the hospital had exclusive 

control and management of the situation: 

[The patient] was admitted to the defendant's hospital 

suffering from a "stroke" and unconscious. She was stil l 

unconscious five days later when her leg was broken 

while she was being turned in her bed by a nurse's a i de. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5119 Document: 010110076393 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 5 
She could not voluntarily have done anything to contribute to the breaking of her leg, and it was beyond her 

power to prove whether the action of the nurse's aide 

was culpable or innocent. The entire situation, even 

the plaintiff herself, was under the management and control of the defendant and its staff. 

Id. at 169. 

The district court here concluded that appellee did not have 

control over the instrumentality. We believe that, even in light 

of the Oklahoma Supreme Court's disposition in Chapman, the district court's judgment is correct. Unlike the hospital's control 

of the nurse in Chapman, it is disputed here whether appellee is 

responsible for the actions of the decedent's roommate. Under 

Oklahoma law, appellee is responsible only if the roommate's 

actions were reasonably foreseeable. See Lay v. Dworman, 732 P.2d 

455 (Okla. 1986); Chapman, 434 P.2d at 169 ("There is an implied 

obligation or duty on the part of hospitals to exercise ordinary 

care and attention for their patients, and that care and attention 

should be in proportion to the physical and mental ailments and 

condition of the particular patient."). That appellee was in complete management and control of the situation is a foundation 

issue that must be proven by appellant before the doctrine of res 

ipsa loguitur applies. Fleming v. Baptist Gen. Convention, 742 

P.2d 1087, 1093 (Okla. 1987); Chapman, 434 P.2d at 167; Little v. 

Arbuckle Memorial Hosp. Bd. of Control, 665 P.2d 1227, 1229 (Okla. 

App. 1983). That the medical records were created by appellee's 

employees does not relieve appellant of that burden. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-5119 Document: 010110076393 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 6 
. ' . • 

Here, the district court had before it medical evidence 

recorded prior to the incident as well as the testimony of the 

hospital staff. It concluded that the roommate's behavior was not 

reasonably foreseeable. The district court was in the best position to weigh the credibility of the testimony, and we do not find 

its conclusions clearly erroneous. 

Appellant's only other argument, that the district court 

improperly weighed the evidence, rests upon her argument that the 

court improperly refused to apply the doctrine of res ipsa 

loguitur. Because we do not find the district court's decision to 

be in error, we need not further address appellant's contention. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-7-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-5119 Document: 010110076393 Date Filed: 01/15/1991 Page: 7