USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 97-1157
LUCAS LUCARELLI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. P rez-Gim nez, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge. _____________
_____________________
Plinio P rez-Marrero for appellant. ____________________
Fidel A. Sevillano-del R o, Assistant United States _______________________________
Attorney, with whom Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, was on _____________
brief for appellee.
____________________
June 18, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Lucas Lucarelli ("Lucarelli"), a disabled Per Curiam. __________
40 year old veteran of the United States Air Force, and his
mother, Ada Rivera ("Rivera"), filed this action in federal
district court, claiming medical malpractice against the United
States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C.
2671-2680.
Plaintiffs' claim arose in 1992 when Lucarelli was
admitted to the Veteran's Administration Medical Center in Puerto
Rico, complaining of back pain and difficulty walking and
urinating. Surgery was scheduled to treat him. Prior to the
surgery, an HIV test was conducted. The test results were
negative, although Lucarelli was not informed of this fact. He
claims to have overheard two nurses discussing that he "probably
had" the virus.
In March or April 1993, Rivera received a letter
addressed to Lucarelli, which she opened on his behalf. The
letter, dated December 15, 1992, stated that Lucarelli had tested
positive for HIV.
It was not until December 21, 1993, that Lucarelli,
after contacting an attorney and undergoing another HIV test,
learned that he was, in fact, HIV negative.
Following a bench trial, the court awarded damages
totalling $33,750. Plaintiffs-appellants appeal, essentially
arguing that the district court made erroneous factual
determinations regarding the damages suffered.
-2-
On appeal, findings of fact will be set aside only if
clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Juno SRL v. S/V _________ ___
Endeavour, 58 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995). Having reviewed the _________
record and the briefs on appeal, we conclude that the district
court did not commit clear error. Accordingly, we affirm the affirm ______
decision of the district court.
-3-