IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-10698
Summary Calendar
_____________________
LEROY BROWN, Individually and as next friend of Randy
Lea Brown, Amber Cascade Brown and Cody Alan Brown,
Minors, BARBARA GAIL BROWN, Individually and as next
friend of Randy Lea Brown, Amber Cascade Brown and Cody
Alan Brown, Minor Children, RANDY LEA BROWN, a Minor,
AMBER CASCADE BROWN, a Minor, and CODY ALAN BROWN, a
Minor,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas
(5:95-CV-27-C)
_______________________________________________________
May 13, 1997
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lee Roy Brown appeals the district court’s finding for the
Government in his medical negligence claims against the United
States. We affirm for the following reasons:
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
1. Plaintiff alleges that although he consented to having
back surgery at the Veteran’s Administration hospital to treat
his arachnoiditis, the lysis surgery which dislodged the spinal
roots from adhesions in the thoracic level was unnecessary and
unwarranted “exploratory” surgery, the proximate cause of his
post-operative injuries, and constituted malpractice. The court
found that the actual surgical procedure, a laminectomy from T4
to T10, was essentially that which Brown consented to have, and
that he consented to the procedure after having been fully
informed by his doctors of the serious risks involved. The court
further found that the laminectomy procedure as carried out
without magnification or steroids was warranted and within the
standard of care.
2. Plaintiff alleges that the surgery was the proximate
cause of his paraplegia and loss of control over his ensuing loss
of bladder, bowel, and sexual functions. The district court
found that Plaintiff had been fully informed by his physicians of
the serious risks involved in the surgery, and consented to the
procedure. The court further found that Brown’s disabilities
could reasonably be expected to develop as a result of the
ongoing deterioration of his preexisting condition, irrespective
of surgical intervention.
3. Plaintiff further complains that the trial court’s
findings do not reflect a weighing of the evidence presented and
2
are insufficient to provide for meaningful review. Nickerson v.
Travelers Insurance Co., 437 F.2d 113, 114 (5th Cir. 1971). The
district court adopted the Government’s findings of fact, but
these are supported by evidence contained in the record on
appeal. The record reflects that the court understood the issues
in the case and reviewed all of the evidence presented both in
open court and by deposition. Accordingly, we defer to the
court’s findings. Clark v. Mobil Oil Corp. 693 F.2d 500 (501
(1982). Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). The court’s conclusion that Brown’s
disabilities are the result of a preexisting condition not caused
by the United States is consistent with its finding that the
surgical procedure used was warranted in light of the plaintiff’s
particular history and symptoms of adhesions around the spinal
chord in the thoracic area, and that the procedure was within the
standard of care. See Pharmaseal Labs, Inc. v. Goffe, 90 N.M.
753, 568 P.2d 589 (1977).
AFFIRMED.
3