Case Name: Velma CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW ORLEANS AVIATION BOARD, etc., et al., Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., et al., Third-Party-Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-05-03
Citations: 493 F.2d 460
Docket Number: No. 74-1167
Parties: Velma CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW ORLEANS AVIATION BOARD, etc., et al., Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., et al., Third-Party-Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 493
Pages: 460–461

Head Matter:
Velma CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW ORLEANS AVIATION BOARD, etc., et al., Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., et al., Third-Party-Defendants.
No. 74-1167
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 3, 1974.
Bruce W. Dinwiddie, Edward J. Bran-dao, Kenneth W. Manuel, New Orleans, La., William F. Dukes, Gulfport, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.
A. Remy Fransen, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Francis G. Weller, New Orleans, La., for other interested parties.
Before GEWIN, GODBOLD and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The District Judge dismissed this personal injury case for want of jurisdictional amount after having examined medical reports submitted by plaintiff's treating physician and a physician who examined her at the request of the defendants. In his oral findings delivered from the bench following a hearing, the District Judge based his dismissal on the predicate that all the medical history revealed severe preexisting degenerative arthritis which condition did not change after the accident, and, more specifically, that both medical reports showed there had been no aggravation of the preexisting condition.
The predicate was erroneous, and the defendants do not contend otherwise. Rather they urge that a district judge is not precluded by conflicting medical evidence from eváluating all the evidence and deciding under appropriate standards that jurisdictional amount is not present. The short answer is that that is not what the District Judge did in this case, and the dismissal must be and is reversed and the cause remanded.
. They also urge various reasons why certain of the conclusions set out by plaintiff's own doctor in his report should be ignored or minimized.