Case Name: Richard BLOODWORTH; Dinah Bloodworth, individually and as parents and next friends of William Anthony Bloodworth; William Anthony Bloodworth, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 196 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 05-35084
Parties: Richard BLOODWORTH; Dinah Bloodworth, individually and as parents and next friends of William Anthony Bloodworth; William Anthony Bloodworth, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
Richard BLOODWORTH; Dinah Bloodworth, individually and as parents and next friends of William Anthony Bloodworth; William Anthony Bloodworth, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 05-35084.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 27, 2006.
Decided Aug. 3, 2006.
Linda Anna Webb, Esq., Hagans Ah-earn McLaughlin & Webb, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiffs — Appellants.
Daniel R. Cooper, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant — Appellee.
Before: KOZINSKI, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court's finding that Dr. Mil-stein was qualified to offer an expert opinion was not clearly erroneous. Given that Dr. Milstein is a board-certified pediatrician and pediatric neurologist with extensive training and experience, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing him to testify as an expert. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Dr. Milstein offered an unbiased, neutral opinion that was entitled to credence. "[T]he district court is in a unique position to admit the evidence, hear the testimony, and evaluate the credibility and demeanor of witnesses." Matter of McLinn, 739 F.2d 1395, 1405 (9th Cir.1984). Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court's finding that Dr. Milstein was more credible than Dr. Rubin was clearly erroneous.
The district court also did not err in finding that Appellants failed to meet their burden of proof pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 09.55.540. The district court reasonably determined that Drs. Fusco and Ramsey had "a duty to diagnose, manage, and treat childhood illness," but that Appellants could not show that any act or omission by the doctors was the proximate cause of William Bloodworth's injuries.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.