Sharon Moats v. US
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SHARON MOATS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and WILLIAM MOATS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant Appellee, and CITY HOSPITAL, INCORPORATED; COURTNEY STRUTHERS, M.D.; DAWN REED JONES, M.D.; SHENANDOAH VALLEY MEDICAL SYSTEM, INCORPORATED; WVUH-EAST; GATEWAY REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM, INCORPORATED, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:06-cv-00120-JPB-JES; 3:07-cv-00022JPB)
July 30, 2009
August 12, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Barry J. Nace, PAULSON & NACE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Sharon Moats appeals from the district court's orders granting judgment in favor of the Defendant in her professional liability action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and alleging medical malpractice and by physicians her at Shenandoah for
reconsideration, a new trial, and judgment. * appeal that the district court erred in
Moats argues on finding that the
Shenandoah Community Health Center physicians were not negligent in their care of her. reversible error. We have reviewed the record and find no
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated United States v. Moats, Nos. 3:06-cv(N.D.W. Va. Mar. 19 & 27,
by the district court. 00120-JPB-JES; 2008).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
The United States was substituted as the Defendant for the physicians at Shenandoah Community Health Center.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?