UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN A. GRIFFITHS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SIEMENS AUTOMOTIVE, L.P.; SIEMENS
PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE PLAN,                              No. 95-2563
Defendants-Appellees,

and

BRENDA LIVELY,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Robert G. Doumar, District Judge.
(CA-92-28-4)

Submitted: January 11, 1996

Decided: January 31, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John A. Griffiths, Appellant Pro Se. James Patrick McElligott, Jr.,
David Frederick Dabbs, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE &
BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John A. Griffiths appeals from a district court judgment for Defen-
dants. We affirm.

Griffiths was burdened on remand with showing that he suffered
an accident covered by his employer's insurance plan. See Griffiths
v. Siemens Automotive, L.P., No. 92-2118 (4th Cir. Nov. 16, 1994)
(unpublished). His sole evidence during trial was that his treatment
for a duodenal ulcer should not have resulted in organic brain disease
and an abdominal hernia. Because the proof failed to show an acci-
dent or malpractice that would constitute an accident during treat-
ment, Fitzgerald v. Manning, 

, 347 (4th Cir. 1982);
Raines v. Lutz, 

, 197 (Va. 1986), and was insufficient
to support application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, Easterling v.
Walton, 

, 789-91 (Va. 1967); Danville Community
Hosp., Inc. v. Thompson, 

, 886-87 (Va. 1947), the dis-
trict court correctly found Griffiths failed to support his claim for pay-
ment of insurance proceeds. Griffiths's claims of error on appeal are
moot in light of his failure to meet his burden of proof.

Therefore, we affirm the district court judgment. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2