* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-40492

Summary Calendar

NANCY MILES PERKINS, AS NEXT

FRIEND OF MILOCY MILES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(2:94-CV-26)

February 27, 1996

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, KING and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Milocy Miles ("Miles") was injured when an automobile driven

by a United States government employee collided with an automobile

in which she was a passenger. Her injuries left scars on her face

and chin. She sued the United States to recover compensation for

the injuries that she suffered in that collision. The United

States admitted that the collision was caused by its employee's2

negligence, and the only issue before the trial court was the

proper amount of damages. The trial court awarded Miles a total of

$38,502.65. Of these damages, the trial court awarded $11,043.65

for past me dical expenses, $2,459 for future medical expenses,

$1 5,000 for past pain and suffering, mental anguish and physical

impairment, and $10,000 for future pain and suffering, mental

anguish and physical impairment. The trial court, however, did not

award damages for disfigurement. Miles appealed, claiming that the

trial court erred in not awarding any damages for disfigurement.

In reviewing the trial court' s award of damages, we must

review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the

factfinder's verdict, and we must affirm the verdict unless the

evidence points "so strongly and overwhelming ly in favor of one

party that the court believes that reasonable [persons] could not

arrive at a contrary [conclusion]." J ones v. Wal Mart Stores

, 870

F.2d 982, 987 (5th Cir. 1989).

Miles contends that she is entitled to recover damages for

disfigurement because she suffered scarring to her face and chin.

Under Texas law, however, to recover damages for disfigurement, she

must prove that she was not compensated for the scarr ing in the

trial court's award o f pain and suffering, mental anguish and

physical impairment. Cf. Landacre v. Armstrong Bldg. Maintenance

Co.

, 725 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, writ ref'd

n.r.e.)("[i]n order to be entitled to recover damages for physical

impairment, a plaintiff must sustain the burden of proving that the

effect of his physical impairment extends beyond any impediment to

his earning capacity and beyond any pain and suffering to the

extent that it products a separate and distinct loss that is

substantial and for which he should be compensated"). In this

case, we find that the trial court compensated her for her

disfigurement in its awards for mental anguish and physical

impairment. The only future physical impairment that Miles will3

suffer is the scarring to her face and skin. Because the award for

mental anguish and physical impai rment compensated her for the

scarring, the trial court did not err in failing to award damages

for disfigurement.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court

is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.