FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T J UNE 2, 2 009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 15 72 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 94 3- CV-ORL-2 2- KRS MIC HAEL A. VALDIVIA, JR., as Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Mi ch ael A. Vald iv ia , Sr., Deceas ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a (J un e 2 , 20 09 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BLACK an d B ARKETT, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:App el la ntMi ch ael A. Vald iv ia , Jr. (“ Vald iv ia ”), as pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve

of th e Est at e o f Mi ch ael A. Vald iv ia , Sr., dec eas ed(“ de ced en t” ), br ou gh t an act io n ag ai ns t t he Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca al le gi ng m ed ic al m al pr act ic e u nd er t he Fed eral TortCla im s Act , 28 U.S.C. §§ 13 46 (b )(1 ), 26 71 -8 0 (“ FTCA”). Sp eci fic al ly, Vald iv ia , all eg edth atth e Vet eran s Aff ai rs Med ic al Cen te r inMi am i, Fl or id a (“ VAMC”) , th ro ug h i ts em pl oyee m ed ic al do ct or s, n eg li ge nt ly fail edto di ag no se th e d eced en t’s t erm in al co lo n c an cer. Afte r co nduc ti ng a th ree- da y be nc h t ria l, t he di stric t co urt m ad e fi nd in gs of factan d c on cl us io ns of l aw. Am on g o th er t hi ng s, the di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t VAMC v io la te d t he ap pl ic ab le st an da rdof c are b y (1) fai li ng to scr een th e de ced en t fo r co lo n c an cer p rio r to 20 01 (atwhi ch ti m e h e was 69 y ears ol d) , and (2 ) fai li ng to co nduc t fo ll ow- up tes ti ng aft er a fe cal oc cu ltbl oo d t es t (“ FOBT”) o n th e d eced en t re tu rn eda tr ace p os it iv e res ul t fo r bl oo d. Al th ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d the VAMC was ne gl ig en t i n i ts care of t he de ced en t, the co urt fo un d t ha t
ne it he r of th es e b reac he s i n c are was th e p ro xi m at e cau se of the de ced en t’s d eat h. As i s t y pi cal in m ed ic al m al pr act ic e cas es , th ere was co nf li ct in g e vi de nc e b y
ex pe rts on bo th si de s. In th e p res en t ca se , th e d is tri ctco urt cr ed it edth e te st im on y of th e g ov ern m en t’s ex pe rt wi tn es s, b oa rd -certi fie d c ol onan d re ct al su rg eo n Mi ch ael D. Hell in ge r, M.D., who op in edth atth e d eced en t’s ca nc er l ik el y ha d
2ari se n fr om

a rare , “no n- po lypo idco lo rect al ne op la sm , whi ch [ha d] ag gr es si ve ly sp readto th e [d eced en t’s] liv er atanearl y st ag e.” (Do c. 66 at 9 ). The di stric t co urt al so ex pl ai ne d wh y itha d fo un d Dr. Hel li ng er’s t es ti m on y
on th e is su e o f cau sa ti onm or e p ers ua si ve th anth e co nt rary tes ti m on y of t he ex pe rt wit ne ss who ha d t es ti fie d o n b eh al f of th e d eced en t.

“ W e rev ie w forcle ar erro r fac tu al fin di ng s m ad e b y a di st ric t co urt af

te r a be nc h tria l.” Mor riss et te -Bro wn v. Mob il e In fi rma ryMed. Ctr

. , 50 6 F .3d13 17 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); F ed . R. Civ . P. 52 (a). Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rdan d re ad in g t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we can no t s ay th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs co nc ern in g c au sa ti on are cl earl y erro ne ou s. Th e di st ric t co urt h eardth e te st im on y of a ll of t he wit ne ss es in th is cas e, in cl ud in g t he
ex pe rts , andwas e nt it le d t o c red itth e te st im on y of t he go ve rn m en t’s ex pe rt wit ne ss ov er t ha t o f Val di vi a’s ex pe rt wi tn es s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t en te redin fav orof the Uni te d S ta te s. AFFIRMED.

3