Court Opinion

ID: 992110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:46:47.316935+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:02.002554
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT L. BARR, SR., Individually
and as Administrator of the Estate
of Robert L. Barr, Jr.; CATHERINE
BARR, Individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
                                                No. 96-1594
v.

ANNE ARUNDEL MEDICAL CENTER;
ROSEMARY LETHBRIDGE, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.

ROBERT L. BARR, SR., Individually
and as Administrator of the Estate
of Robert L. Barr, Jr.; CATHERINE
BARR, Individually,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.
                                                No. 96-1639
ANNE ARUNDEL MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendant-Appellant,

and

ROSEMARY LETHBRIDGE, M.D.,
Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Joseph H. Young, Senior District Judge.
(CA-95-1003-Y)

Argued: April 7, 1997

Decided: April 29, 1997
Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Frank McClellan, EATON, MCCLELLAN & ALLEN,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants. James Thomas Wharton,
WHARTON, LEVIN, EHRMANTRAUT, KLEIN & NASH, P.A.,
Annapolis, Maryland; Kurt D. Karsten, COWDREY, THOMPSON &
KARSTEN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:
Christian A. Lodowski, WHARTON, LEVIN, EHRMANTRAUT,
KLEIN & NASH, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellee Leth-
bridge.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Barr, Sr., on behalf of himself and his wife, and as
administrator of the estate of his son, Robert L. Barr, Jr., appeals the
judgment of the district court in a wrongful death suit. Robert L. Barr,
Jr. was a midshipman at the United States Naval Academy, where, on
September 12, 1989, he suffered a near-drowning accident in a swim-
ming pool. Witnesses testified that Barr Jr. was found near the bottom
of the pool with reddish and white mucous fluid coming out of his
mouth. Rescuers saved Barr and resuscitated him with CPR. One wit-
ness testified that Barr Jr. vomited at least a quart of fluid while he
was being resuscitated.

                    2
Emergency medical personnel transported Barr Jr. to Anne Arundel
Medical Center ("AAMC") by ambulance, where he was attended by
the emergency room physician, Rosemary Lethbridge, M.D. After
receiving treatment, Barr Jr. was transferred to the Intensive Care
Unit, where he developed a lung infection. After another transfer, to
the University of Maryland Shock Trauma Center, he died on Sep-
tember 25, 1991.

Barr Sr. filed suit against AAMC and Dr. Lethbridge. He asserted
a wrongful death action against AAMC, claiming that AAMC's
agents and employees were negligent in the medical care they pro-
vided Barr Jr. Barr Sr. also claimed that Dr. Lethbridge's treatment
of Barr Jr. fell below the applicable standard of care, and contributed
to his death. An eight-day jury trial followed. The jury returned ver-
dicts in favor of both defendants.

The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. On
appeal, Barr Sr. raises five issues: (1) the verdict was against the great
weight of the evidence; (2) the court admitted an inaccurate summary
of care prepared by the defendants; (3) the district court improperly
awarded each defendant two peremptory challenges; (4) the court
abused its discretion in refusing to inquire about the racial attitudes
of the venire; and (5) the defendants used all of their peremptory chal-
lenges to strike four African-Americans.

We have carefully reviewed the record, considered the submissions
of the parties, and heard oral argument. We find that the record sup-
ports the majority of the information in the summary chart. Any other
inaccuracies are immaterial. Nonetheless, the summary chart should
have been authenticated by its preparer before the district court admit-
ted it. This error does not require reversal, however, given the exten-
sive evidence in the record supporting the jury's verdict.

None of the other issues give us cause to reverse the district court.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

                     3