# Brown v. United States

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 15, 1997 · 116 F.3d 1476

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/12032

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 15, 1997
- **Citations:** 116 F.3d 1476; 1997 WL 304093
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/12032

## Opinion text

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/12032. Public record. Not legal advice.