FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APR 20, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15878 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -001 12 -C V -C A R -5 R O N A L D D A V I S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s F A I R F I E L D I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l20, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: I n th is d iv e r s ity a c tio n a r is in g o u t o f a d is ab ility in s u r a n c e p o lic y , R o n a ld2

D avi s app ea l s, pro se, the di stri ctcourt ’ s j ud gm enti n favor of F ai rf i el d Insurance Co mp a n y ( “ Fa i r f

i e l d ” ) . A f

t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D D av i s, w h o w as rep resen t ed b y co u n sel atth e t i m e, fi l ed th i s act i o n ag ai n st F a ir f ie ld a lle g in g th a t F a ir f

ie ld w r o n g f

u lly r e f u s e d to p a y h im in c o m e d is ab ility b e n e f its a f te rh e w a s in

ju r e d in a n a c c id e n t w h ile w o rk in g a s a tru c k d r iv e r . A lth o u g h D a v is ’s c o m p la in t in c lu d e d a ju ry d e m a n d , D a v is ’s c o u n s e l v e rb a lly s tip u la te d to a b e n c h tr ia l d u r in g a p r e - tr ia l c o n f e r e n c e . T r i a l w a s s e tf

orO c t obe r5, 2004. P r i ort o tha tda t e , D a vi s ’ s c ouns e l f i l e d a m ot i on t o w i thd ra w , w hi ch the di stri ctcourtgrant ed. T he di stri ctcourtcont i nu ed D av is’s ca se so th at D av is co u ldo b tain n ew co u n se l. O n M ay 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , D av is’s n e w c o u n s e l e n te r e d a n ap p e a r a n c e a n d s u b s e q u e n tly r e q u e s te d ac o n tin u a n c e to prepare for tri al . T he di stri ctcourtgave the cont i nu ance , ca l endari ng the bench tri al for J ul y 18, 20 05 . A ta pre -tri al confer ence on Jul y 5, 20 05 , D avi s’ s c ou nsel g a v e n o in d ic a tio n th a t h e n e e d e d a d d itio n a l tim e o rw a s n o t r e a d y f o rtr ia l. O n J u ly 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n d u c te d a b e n c h tr ia l, a f te rw h ic h it e nt e r e d j udgm e nti n f

a vorof F a i r f i e l d. I n i t s or de rf

i ndi ng i n f

a vorof F a i r f i e l d, the di stri ctcourt , i nt eral i a, foun d D avi s’ s t es t i m on y abo uthi s i nj ury a nd hi s a l l eged di sabi l i ty notcr edi bl e. T he di stri ctcourtci t ed “ a c om bi nat i on of w hatP l ai nt i ff3

f a ile d to p r o v e a t tr ia l, h is s ig n if ic a n t m e d ic a l h is to ry th a t h e tr ie d to c o v e ru p , h is c o n f u s in g te s tim o n y a t tr ia l ab o u t h is m e d ic a l p r o b le m s , a n d , m o s t im p o r ta n t, h is te s tim o n y u n d e ro a th in a n u n r e la te d c a s e in w h ic h h e c la im e d p e rm a n e n t d is ab ility f r o m th e a c ts o f

th e C ity o f

F o r s y th , w h ic h a lle g e d ly c a u s e d a s e w e r a g e [ s ic ] to back up i n h i s hom e. ” T he di stri ctcourtdet ai l ed the fa i l ures of proo f that unde r m i ne d D a vi s ’ s t e s t i m ony , i nc l udi ng l a c k of e vi de nc e aboutthe f

or c e of i m pa c ttha tc a us e d hi s i nj ur i e s , s uc h a s phot ogr aphs , the l a c k of m e di c a l tr e a tm e nt r i ghta f t e rthe a c c i de ntorl a t e r , a nd the pr e s e nc e of doc um e nt e d pr e - e xi s t i ng m ed i cal co n d i t i o n s w i th si m i l ar sym p t o m s. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o not e d tha tD a vi s ha d t e s t i f i e d a ttr i a l tha the s om e t i m e s gotc onf

us e d f r om the e f

f e c t s of the s e w a ge ba c kup i n hi s hom e . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t o b s e r v e d th a t D a v is h a d d e m o n s tr a te d a t tr ia l “c o n f u s io n ab o u t h is m e d ic a l h is to ry , h is m e d ic a l c o m p la in ts a lle g e d ly a r is in g f r o m th e a c c id e n t in th is c a s e , a n d th e tr e a tm e n t h e r e c e iv e d ,” a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t th is c o n f u s io n a d d e d to D av i s’ s cred i b i l i ty p ro b l em s. H o w e v e r , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tf o u n d th a tD a v i s ’ s “ c h i e f c r e d i b i l i ty p r o b l e m” w a s d u e to h is c o n tr a d ic to ry te s tim o n y in th e u n r e la te d la w s u it, in w h ic h D a v is t e s t i f i e d tha the w a s c om pl e t e l y di s abl e d a s a r e s ul tof the s e w a ge ba c k up. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t in te rp r e te d th is c o n f lic tin g te s tim o n y a s a n a tte m p t b y D a v is toIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981), we adopted as 1 binding prece dent all dec isions from the former Fifth Circuit dec ided on or be foreSeptember 30, 1981. 4 “m a x im iz e h is d a m a g e s in th e c a s e in w h ic h h e is te s tif y in g .” B as ed on D avi s’ s l ac k o f c re di bi l i ty a nd fa i l ure of proof, the di stri ctcourt e n te r e d ju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f F a ir f ie ld . D a v is f

ile d th is ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON D avi s’ s f i rs tar gu m ent , thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y c on du ct i ng a bench tri al w i tho uthi s c on se nt , i s w i tho utm er i t . D avi s’ s i ni t i al coun se l of re cord st i pu l at ed t o a bench tri al du ri ng a pre -tri al confere nce w i th the di stri ctcourt , as r e f l e c t e d i n the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s m i nut e s he e t . S e e F e d. R . C i v. P . 39( a ) ( 1) ( s t a t i ng tha ttr i a l by j ury i s notr e qui r e d, e ve n i f de m a nde d, w he n the pa r ty ’ s a tt orne y of r e c o r d b y o r a l s tip u la tio n c o n s e n ts to a b e n c h tr ia l) . F u r th e rm o r e , n e ith e rD a v is n o rh is c o u n s e l e v e ro b

je c te d to a b e n c h tr ia l, b u t, in s te a d , a c tiv e ly p a r tic ip a te d in the be nc h tr i a l . S e e W i l s on v. B a i l e y , 934 F . 2d 301, 305 n. 4 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( c onc l udi ng tha ta f

a i l ur e t o obj e c tt o a be nc h tr i a l i n the di s tr i c tc our tw a i ve s the i s s ue f orappe l l a t e r e vi e w ) ; S outhl a nd R e s hi p, I nc . v. F l e ge l , 534 F . 2d 639, 644- 45 ( 5th C i r . 1976) ( c onc l udi ng tha ta pa r ty w a i ve s hi s r i ghtt o a j ury tr i a l by ac qu i es ci ng t o a bench tri al ). 1 D a v is ’s s e c o n d c o n te n tio n , th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y f a ilin g to g iv e h is5

r e p la c e m e n t c o u n s e l m o r e tim e to p r e p a r e f o rtr ia l, is e q u a lly w ith o u t m e r it. D a v is obt a i ne d r e pl a c e m e ntc ouns e l on M a y 19, 2005. R e pl a c e m e ntc ouns e l obt a i ne d a tw o- m onth c ont i nua nc e t o gi ve hi m t i m e t o pr e pa r e f ortr i a l . A tno poi nti n the pr oc e e di ngs di d D a vi s orhi s r e pl a c e m e ntc ouns e l r e que s ta ddi t i ona l t i m e or s ugge s ttha tm or e t i m e w a s ne e de d. C ontr a ryt o D a vi s ’ s a s s e r t i on, F e de r a l R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 16 do es no tre qu i re a di stri ctcourtt o con fe r s ua spon t e a dd i t i on al tri al prepara t i on t i m e. F i nal l y, D avi s a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n fai l i ng t o i nq ui re further a s to D a v is ’s c o m p e te n c y a f te rD a v is b e c a m e c o n f

u s e d w h ile te s tif

y in g ab o u t h is m e di c a l hi s t ory a nd e xpl a i ne d tha the s om e t i m e s gotc onf us e d. W e c a n f

i nd no autho ri ty t o sup po rtD avi s’ s c on t ent i on thata di stri ctcourthas adu ty t o i nq ui re su a sp o n t e i n t o a co u n sel ed ci v i l p l ai n t i ff’ s m en t al co m p et en ce u n d er th ese ci rcu m st an ces. F e d e r a l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 6 0 1 p r o v id e s th a t “[ e ]v e ry p e r s o n is c o m p e te n t to be a w i tness exce ptas otherw i se prov i ded . . . . ” F ed. R . E vi d. 60 1. T he A dv i sory C om m i tt e e N ot e e xpl a i ns tha tthe r e a r e “ [ n] o m e nt a l orm or a l qua l i f i c a t i ons f or t e s t i f y i ng a s a w i tne s s , ” tha t“ [ d] i s c r e t i on i s r e gul a r l y e xe r c i s e d i n f a vorof a l l ow i ng the t e s t i m ony , ” a nd tha ti ti s m or e appr opr i a t e l y a que s t i on of “ w e i ghta nd cr edi bi l i ty, subj ec tt o j ud i ci al autho ri ty t o revi ew the suff i ci encyof the evi dence. ”F ur therm ore , b e c a

us eDa visfaile d toprov idetrans c riptsof thetrial, w ewould

beun a ble 2 to reviewsuch an a ssertion had it been made. SeeFe d. R. App. P. 10(b)(1). Appellee ’s motion for damag es and c osts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 is denied. 3 6 F ed. R . E vi d. 60 1 adv i sorycom m i tt ee ’ s not e. F urtherm ore, on e of our si st er c ir c u its h a s c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is n o t o b lig a te d to in q u ir e s u a s p o n te i nt o a pl ai nt i ff’ s m ent al com pet ency“ even w hen the j ud ge ob se rves behavi or that m a y s ugge s tm e nt a l i nc apa c i ty . ” S e e F e rr e l l i v. R i ve rM a norH e a l th C a r e C tr . , 323 F . 3d 19 6, 20 1-02 & n. 4 (2d C i r. 20 03 ). H e r e , apa r tf

r om the c i r c um s t a nc e s m e nt i one d above , D a vi s doe s notpoi nt t o any behavi or by hi m du ri ng the tri al thatshou l d h ave s ug gest ed m ent al i nc apa c i ty t o the di s tr i c tc our t . U nde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , w e c a nnots a y the 2 di stri ctcourt ’ s f

ai l ure t o sua spon t e i nq ui re i nt o D avi s’ s c om pet encyw as error. 3 AF F I RME D.