Carolyn Bates v. United States General Services Administration
695 F. App'x 429
11th Cir.2017Background
- Bates, a volunteer court representative, was struck by an unsecured wooden bench in the Selma federal courthouse; she reported neck, right shoulder, back, and hip pain and visited the ER the same day.
- ER treatment included muscle-spasm treatment, a hip injection, and pain medication; Bates submitted ER bills of $1,543.33 to GSA and sought further treatment.
- Subsequent physicians documented degenerative spinal changes; Dr. Kezar opined the bench "may have been the cause" of pain but also stated changes could reflect aging with exacerbation; no doctor definitively attributed ongoing pain to the accident.
- Bates sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence seeking medical damages and other relief; the district court found the government negligent but limited damages to the ER bills and awarded $1,543.33 plus taxable costs of $736.30, denying the cost of a deposition for the home care assistant.
- The district court credited Bates’s testimony that the bench struck her and caused the same-day ER injuries but found her testimony about ongoing injuries not credible based on gaps in treatment, perceived exaggeration, and lack of medical support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate causation (ongoing injuries) | Bench accident caused ongoing pain under a "Sudden Onset" theory | District court properly found only same-day ER injuries proximately caused by the accident; ongoing injuries not proven | Court declined to consider Sudden Onset theory raised first on appeal; affirmed finding no proximate causation for ongoing injuries |
| Damages calculation (use of non-admitted letter) | Award improperly based on a letter to GSA not introduced at trial | Amount reflected actual ER bill figure and no evidence showed it was incorrect; bench trial judge as factfinder could rely on record | Affirmed; plaintiff failed to show prejudice from reliance on the letter |
| Evidentiary rulings and credibility findings | District court excluded and relied on evidence improperly and failed to credit witnesses | District court acted within discretion; plaintiff failed to identify specific record citations or show abuse | Affirmed; appellant did not meet Rule 28(e) burden and credibility determinations warranted deference |
| Taxation of costs (McNeil deposition) | Court abused discretion by denying deposition cost | Plaintiff failed to show deposition was "necessarily obtained for use in the case" as required by §1920 | Affirmed; denial proper because deposition was not used, admitted, or shown necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitley v. United States, 170 F.3d 1061 (11th Cir. 1999) (bench-trial fact-findings reviewed for clear error)
- Golden Door Jewelry Creations, Inc. v. Lloyds Underwriters Non-Marine Ass'n, 117 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 1997) (district court damage calculations reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Ramirez-Chilel, 289 F.3d 744 (11th Cir. 2002) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
- Burchfield v. CSX Transp., Inc., 636 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2011) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Mathews v. Crosby, 480 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2007) (costs awarded to prevailing party reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994) (issues not raised in district court generally not considered on appeal)
- United States v. Ross, 131 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 1997) (party may not challenge rulings it invited)
- EEOC v. W&O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600 (11th Cir. 2000) (deposition costs taxable only if necessarily obtained for use in the case)
- United States v. Francis, 131 F.3d 1452 (11th Cir. 1997) (appellant bears burden to pinpoint excluded evidence in the record)