Case Name: Katherine KINCHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TECHE ACTION BOARD, Etc.; et al., Defendants, United States of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-03
Citations: 77 F. App'x 224
Docket Number: No. 03-30081
Parties: Katherine KINCHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TECHE ACTION BOARD, Etc.; et al., Defendants, United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 77
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
Katherine KINCHEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TECHE ACTION BOARD, Etc.; et al., Defendants, United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-30081.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 3, 2003.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Katherine Kinchen appeals the judgment entered against her in her medical malpractice suit tried to the court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), 2671-80. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not clearly err in finding that Kinchen failed to carry her burden of establishing a causal connection between the alleged breach in the standard of care and the course of her kidney disease. The trial consisted of testimony of the treating physician and expert testimony, which was conflicting on the issues of negligence and causation.
Kinchen's expert testified that the treating physician should have ordered more lab tests and should have referred Kinchen to a kidney specialist. The government's expert, Dr. Lamarche, essentially testified that more testing or a referral most likely would not have changed the course of treatment or the course of plaintiff's kidney disease. We agree with the government that the causation finding is a factual finding subject to review for clear error. We cannot say that the district court's finding on this issue was clearly erroneous, that the court erred in giving more weight to the government's expert witness, given Lamarche's credentials and the substance of his testimony, or that the district court misunderstood the legal standard for causation under applicable Louisiana law.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.