Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60645/USCOURTS-ca5-03-60645-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barbara McDonald
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 19, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60645

Summary Calendar

 

BARBARA MCDONALD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CV-82LN

--------------------

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Barbara McDonald appeals the summary judgment granted in

favor of the Government on her Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

case, alleging dental malpractice. Her sole argument on appeal

is that the district court used the wrong standard under

Mississippi law to determine causation. McDonald does not

challenge on appeal the district court’s conclusion that she

waived any medical malpractice claims other than her allegation

 Case: 03-60645 Document: 0051601330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/19/2004
No. 03-60645

-2-

that she was not given an opportunity to make an informed consent

to the medical procedure, and she also did not challenge the

court’s finding that she failed to establish causation. These

claims are therefore deemed abandoned. See Elvis Presley

Enters., Inc. v. Capece, 141 F.3d 188, 193 n.2 (5th Cir. 1998).

Although the district court did not specifically state that

it was applying the “objective causation” test used under

Mississippi law for medical malpractice claims, the court used

the proper standard and concluded that McDonald had presented no

evidence to show that a reasonable person would have withheld

consent if informed of the risks involved in the procedure. 

See Phillips v. Hull, 516 So. 2d 488,493 (Miss. 1987). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-60645 Document: 0051601330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/19/2004