The opinion
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4397
___________
THE ESTATE OF MICHEAL KEATING BY MARIE KEATING, the Executrix
of THE ESTATE of Michael Keating; MARIE KEATING, in her own right, and as
executrix of such estate; MARIE KEATING for and on behalf of the heirs of
Estate of Michael Keating,
v.
COATESVILLE VA MEDICAL CENTER; THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERAN AFFAIRS, a/k/a The Veterans Administration; and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MARIE KEATING; *ASHLEY KEATING; and *MICHEAL KEATING,
Appellants
*(Pursuant to Fed R. App. 12(a))
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 10-CV-02672)
District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 25, 2012
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 3, 2012)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM.
The widow and two adult children of Michael Keating appeal, pro se, from
the District Court’s judgment in favor of the United States of America on their
claims of negligence and wrongful death brought pursuant to the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. (FTCA). For the reasons set forth
below, we will affirm.
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, we recite only the facts essential
to our disposition of this appeal.
This case involves the events on June 5 and 6, 2008, which culminated in the
tragic and unfortunate death of Michael Keating, a Vietnam veteran. During the
time in question, Mr. Keating resided at the Coatesville Veterans Administration
Medical Center (the “Coatesville VA”). He had been admitted in April of that year
for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PSTD). The Coatesville VA is a
tertiary psychiatric facility, not a typical hospital. Among other things, it does not
have an emergency room or perform surgery. It does, however, have an urgent
care unit and a 35-bed medical floor. The Coatesville VA also includes
2
transitional housing units, such as the domiciliary floor that Mr. Keating resided on
with other veterans while undergoing treatment for PSTD. In addition to PSTD,
Mr. Keating also suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),
with which he had had been diagnosed in September 2003. On several occasions
prior to his admission to the Coatesville VA, Mr. Keating visited emergency rooms
in response to breathing problems.
During the morning June 5, Mr. Keating experienced difficulty breathing. A
physician assistant working on Mr. Keating’s domiciliary floor issued a “code
blue,” which at the Coatesville VA includes any emergency, not just cardiac or
respiratory arrest. The code blue response team first treated Mr. Keating in the
domiciliary unit, then took him for a chest x-ray, and then took him to the urgent
care unit where he received further treatment. Mr. Keating spent a little more than
two hours in the urgent care unit, during which time his condition improved with
treatment. He was discharged around 1:40 p.m. and walked back to the
domiciliary unit under his own power.
Once back at the domiciliary unit, Mr. Keating was seen by two nurses, at
2:51 p.m. and 3:44 p.m., who checked his vital signs and told him to report any
changes in his condition to staff. A health technician, Frank Hamilton, who was
assigned to work on Mr. Keating’s domiciliary floor performed hourly rounds after
3
midnight. Around midnight, Mr. Hamilton documented that Mr. Keating was in
bed, asleep, and breathing. At around 1 a.m., he noted that Mr. Keating was awake
in bed, but not in any apparent distress.
At approximately 1:40 a.m., a resident in an adjacent room heard that Mr.
Keating was in distress and alerted Mr. Hamilton, who was in a dayroom on the
other end of the floor. Mr. Hamilton went to Mr. Keating’s room, then made a
code blue call, returned to Mr. Keating’s room, and then went to make a follow-up
code blue call. The code response team arrived soon thereafter to find Mr. Keating
unresponsive and cyanotic. After the doctor who was part of the code response
team performed CPR, Mr. Keating had improved color and an improved pulse, but
he did not regain consciousness. Mr. Keating was also given oxygen by a bag
valve mask. He was then transferred by ambulance to nearby Brandywine
Hospital. Mr. Keating never regained consciousness and ultimately died several
months later.
Appellants instituted this action under the FTCA, claiming that the
Coatesville VA and its employees were negligent in their treatment of Mr. Keating
on June 5 and 6, 2008. After a three-day bench trial, during which Appellants
were represented by counsel, the District Court issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law in which it found that neither the Coatesville VA nor any of its
4
employees breached any duty of care owed to Mr. Keating. Accordingly, the
District Court entered judgment in favor of the United States. Appellants timely
appealed.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction under the FTCA pursuant to 28 U.S.C §
1346(b). We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the final judgment of the
District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
After a bench trial, we review the District Court’s factual findings for clear
error only. Am. Soc’y for Testing & Materials v. Corrpro Cos., 478 F.3d 557, 566
(3d Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). This standard does not entitle a reviewing
court to reverse the finding of the trier of fact “simply because it is convinced that
it would have decided the case differently.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). Rather, we may reverse a finding of fact only if it is
“devoid of a credible evidentiary basis or bears no rational relationship to the
supporting data.” Shire US Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348, 352 (3d Cir.
2003). We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s conclusions of law.
Kosiba v. Merck & Co., 384 F.3d 58, 64 (3d Cir. 2004). When “we are confronted
with mixed questions of fact and law, we apply the clearly erroneous standard
except that the District Court’s choice and interpretation of legal precepts remain
5
subject to plenary review.” Gordon v. Lewistown Hosp., 423 F.3d 184, 201 (3d
Cir. 2005).
III.
The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign
immunity, subjecting the United States to liability for the torts of federal
employees acting within the scope of their employment “under circumstances
where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in
accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28
U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1); see In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prod. Liab. Litig., 264 F.3d
344, 361-62 (3d Cir. 2001). Liability under the FTCA is determined by applying
the substantive law of the state in which the injury occurred, DeJesus v. U.S. Dep’t
of Veterans Affairs, 479 F.3d 271, 279 (3d Cir. 2007), which in this instance is
Pennsylvania.
In order to recover on a negligence theory under Pennsylvania law, a
plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; (2)
the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury; and
(4) the plaintiff suffered damages. Martin v. Evans, 711 A.2d 458, 461 (Pa. 1998).
Medical malpractice claims adhere to these four basic elements, but the plaintiff is
“also required to present an expert witness who will testify, to a reasonable degree
6
of medical certainty, that the acts of the physician deviated from good and
acceptable medical standards, and that such deviation was the proximate cause of
the harm suffered.” Mitzefelt v. Kamrin, 584 A.2d 888, 892 (Pa. 1990).
In its comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, the District
Court determined that the conduct of the Coatesville VA and its employees
satisfied the standard of care and that Appellants failed to prove that any act or
omission on the part of the Coatesville VA or its employees increased the risk of
harm or was the factual cause of Mr. Keating’s injuries or death. After careful
review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments, we conclude that
the District Court’s findings were supported by the record and were not clearly
erroneous.
Appellants first argue that the Coatesville VA breached the duty of care by
discharging Mr. Keating back to the domiciliary from the urgent care unit. They
highlight testimony of the physician assistant in the urgent care unit, which they
contend suggests that the decision not to send Mr. Keating to either the medical
ward of the Coatesville VA or a hospital was because it would involve too much
effort or paperwork. At trial, Appellants’ medical expert, Dr. Cohen, opined that
the Coatesville VA failed to meet the standard of care when it discharged Mr.
Keating back to the domiciliary because, in Dr. Cohen’s opinion, he required
7
ongoing monitoring. The United States’ medical expert, Dr. Kane, testified to the
contrary that, taking into consideration the fact that his condition had improved,
the decision to discharge Mr. Keating from urgent care back to the domiciliary did
satisfy the standard of care and that, in any event, he was monitored when he
returned to the domiciliary. The District Court ultimately agreed with the Dr.
Kane. Although Appellants’ expert offered a different opinion, when there is a
battle between reasonable but conflicting expert opinions, the factfinder’s choice
between them is not clearly erroneous. Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Auth. v.
Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209, 1216 (3d Cir. 1993).1 Accordingly, there is no basis to
disturb the District Court’s judgment on this ground.
Appellants also raise on appeal their contention that the Coatesville VA
health technician, Mr. Hamilton, waited too long before making a follow-up code
blue call after discovering that Mr. Keating was in distress, delaying the code
response team. Although the parties offer differing interpretations of Mr.
Hamilton’s testimony, the District Court’s factual finding that the code blue team
arrived approximately three minutes after Mr. Hamilton’s initial code blue call is
1
Dr. Cohen also opined at trial that the code blue response team’s use of a bag valve
mask to provide Mr. Keating oxygen rather than intubation did not meet the standard of
care. On appeal, Appellants appear to have largely abandoned their argument concerning
the use of bag valve ventilation versus intubation, and, in any event, we find nothing in
the record that would require us to conclude that the District Court erred in finding that
the Coatesville VA complied with standard of care in that regard.
8
adequately supported by the record. Moreover, Appellants have not identified any
expert testimony or other evidence presented at trial that would compel the
conclusion that any alleged delay by Mr. Hamilton in placing a follow-up code
blue call caused Mr. Keating’s injuries or ultimate death. The District Court found
that Appellants failed to prove that any failure to act or delay in acting by the
Coatesville VA or any of its employees increased the risk of harm to Mr. Keating,
and Appellants have not shown that this finding was clearly erroneous.
After the deadline for filing their reply brief had lapsed, Appellants filed a
motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix and a separate document titled
Brief for Appellants, both of which were docketed as reply briefs. The United
States filed a Motion to Strike Appellants’ reply briefs. As Appellants are
proceeding pro se and these briefs were filed soon after the deadline for filing a
reply, we will deny the motion to strike and grant Appellants’ motion for leave to
file the reply briefs. We also grant them leave to file the briefs out of time.
Although we have considered Appellants’ reply briefs, issues raised for the first
time therein are waived, 2 Gambino v. Morris, 134 F.3d 156, 161 n.10 (3d Cir.
2
Even if Appellants’ new arguments had not been waived, they would not lead us to
conclude that the District Court’s findings were clearly erroneous. The primary new
argument Appellants raised in their replies is that Mr. Hamilton breached the standard of
care by not performing CPR in the intervening minutes between when he made the code
blue call and when the response team arrived. Among the deficiencies in this argument is
9
1998), and Appellants’ remaining contentions simply point to additional record
materials in support of the arguments we disposed of above, none of which alters
our conclusion that the District Court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
IV.
In conclusion, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court in all
respects. Appellants’ Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Appendix, which
we understand to seek leave to file two reply briefs out of time, is granted. The
Government’s Motion to Strike Appellants’ Reply Briefs is denied. Appellants’
motion requesting a waiver of all fees and costs is granted only insofar as to
require each party to bear only its own costs.
Appellants’ failure to point to any record evidence establishing causation with regard to
this alleged breach.
10