United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20102 

____________ 

Wilber C. Harris, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

CHI St. Luke’s Health Baylor College of Medicine 

Medical Center, doing business as Baylor St. Luke’s Medical 

Center, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:19-CV-4293 

______________________________ 

Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

William Harris appeals the district court’s order to enforce a 

settlement agreement with St. Luke’s Medical Center that Harris previously 

authorized in this medical malpractice case. Finding no abuse of discretion, 

we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

Case: 23-20102 Document: 00517008835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2023
No. 23-20102 

2 

I. 

Harris filed suit against CHI St. Luke’s Medical Center and Baylor 

College of Medicine for medical malpractice after a draping towel was left in 

Harris’s abdomen during surgery. Baylor quickly settled its portion of the 

case. St. Luke’s and Harris later agreed to settle the rest of the case for 

$85,000.00. Two days later, however, Harris’s attorney reneged the 

settlement with St. Luke’s because Harris “changed his mind.” Once St. 

Luke’s moved to enforce the settlement, Harris’s attorney filed an affidavit 

stating that the day after settling, Harris informed him that he had not 

authorized the settlement. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district 

court found that Harris’s attorney held settlement authority and that the 

resulting settlement was enforceable. The district court, therefore, enforced 

the settlement agreement. Harris now appeals. 

II. 

We review an order enforcing settlement for an abuse of discretion. 

Vikas WSP, Ltd. v. Economy Mud Products Co., 23 F.4th 442, 456 (5th Cir. 

2022). “A district court abuses its discretion if it (1) relies on clearly 

erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3) 

misapplies the law to the facts.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 

310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). “When enforcing a settlement, a district court 

must make findings of fact and draw conclusions of law.” Vikas WSP, 23 

F.4th at 456 (citing Pearson v. Ecological Sci. Corp., 522 F.2d 171, 176 (5th Cir. 

1975) and FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a)). 

III. 

Now on appeal, Harris argues that the district court “summarily 

granted” St. Luke’s motion to enforce settlement and that we should reverse 

the district court because there is a clear factual issue on whether Harris’s 

attorney had the authority to settle. Harris, however, misapprehends our 

Case: 23-20102 Document: 00517008835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2023
No. 23-20102 

3 

standard of review to be de novo, and he fails to argue that the district court 

abused its discretion. Harris instead reasserts that he never authorized his 

attorney to settle this case. 

Nevertheless, the district court made factual findings based on 

evidence presented to it at the evidentiary hearing, correctly stated the law, 

and properly applied the law to the facts here. Specifically, the district court 

found that: (1) the settlement agreement was a proper contract between the 

parties and was, therefore, enforceable; and (2) it lacked “affirmative proof” 

that the Harris’s attorney was not authorized to settle the case. The record 

supports the district court’s factual findings, and the district court 

competently applied the relevant law to these facts. As such, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d at 

310. 

IV. 

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 23-20102 Document: 00517008835 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/20/2023