Filed: Apr. 02, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-60312 _ PATRICIA FREEMAN, Individually and as Guardian of Victor Freeman, a minor, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jacqueline Freeman, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BILOXI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; BILOXI HMA, INC., d/b/a Biloxi Regional Medical Center, Inc., Defendants, and NOEL JOHNSON, M.D.; BILOXI OB/GYN CLINIC, P.A., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Missis
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-60312 _ PATRICIA FREEMAN, Individually and as Guardian of Victor Freeman, a minor, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jacqueline Freeman, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus BILOXI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; BILOXI HMA, INC., d/b/a Biloxi Regional Medical Center, Inc., Defendants, and NOEL JOHNSON, M.D.; BILOXI OB/GYN CLINIC, P.A., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississ..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60312
__________________
PATRICIA FREEMAN, Individually and as
Guardian of Victor Freeman, a minor, and
as Administratrix of the Estate of
Jacqueline Freeman,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BILOXI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;
BILOXI HMA, INC., d/b/a Biloxi Regional
Medical Center, Inc.,
Defendants,
and
NOEL JOHNSON, M.D.; BILOXI
OB/GYN CLINIC, P.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
(1:93cv158BrR)
______________________________________________
April 9, 1996
Before REAVLEY, GARWOOD and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
After considering the briefs and argument of counsel and
relevant portions of the record, we conclude that this appeal
presents no reversible error. The district court did not err in
refusing plaintiff’s requested jury instruction number 15 as it was
an incorrect statement of the law, as the trial court informed
plaintiff’s counsel. See Hunnicutt v. Wright,
986 F.2d 119 (5th
Cir. 1993). We reject plaintiff’s complaint on appeal that the
court erred by failing to give any instruction on this subject
matter. Plaintiff failed to adequately preserve this point for
appeal; moreover, it does not appear that the evidence warranted
such an instruction. Plaintiff’s remaining points are without
merit and do not warrant discussion.
AFFIRMED
2