Beech v. United States, 21664.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BROWN and BELL, Circuit , and HUNTER |
| Citation | 345 F.2d 872 |
| Parties | Reverend Johnstone BEECH and Mrs. Maryalma Beech, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 21664.,21664. |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1965 |
345 F.2d 872 (1965)
Reverend Johnstone BEECH and
Mrs. Maryalma Beech, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 21664.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
May 26, 1965.
Louis E. Marshall, San Antonio, Tex., for appellants.
Frederick B. Abramson, Sherman L. Cohn, J. F. Bishop, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., William O. Murray, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., John W. Douglas, Asst. Atty. Gen.,
Before BROWN and BELL, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.
HUNTER, District Judge.
On February 28, 1963, Reverend and Mrs. Beech instituted this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act seeking damage for the alleged negligence of hospital employees in placing and leaving an excessive amount of wax on the hospital floor and thus causing Mrs. Beech's fall and her resultant injuries. The complaint also alleged that the hospital doctors, by their neglect and fault, had failed to provide her with proper care and treatment, and hence, had aggravated her injuries.
The Government moved for summary judgment, basing its request on the grounds:
(1) That plaintiffs\' claim for any injuries Mrs. Beech may have suffered as a result of the fall in June of 1960 was barred as a matter of law by the statute of limitations;
(2) That plaintiffs\' claim, pegged on the alleged breach of duty charged against the doctors in connection with the care and treatment of Mrs. Beech, is barred by the misrepresentation exception;
(3) The record failed to reveal a genuine issue of fact as to the alleged negligence in treating Mrs. Beech.
This appeal is taken from the District Court's action in granting the United States' motion for summary judgment. The relevant facts are as follows:
On June 15, 1960, Mrs. Beech, age 62, had occasion to be in the Beach Pavilion of the Army's Brooke General Hospital at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. She was walking down the hallway and slipped on what she alleges was wet wax or some other slippery material, landing on her left hip and experiencing considerable pain. She proceeded to a nearby office in the hospital where she reported the accident and was examined by a doctor. X-rays were taken but they revealed no fracture. Mrs. Beech was given medicine to relieve her pain and permitted to go home. The next day, at the request of the hospital doctors, she returned to the hospital for further examination. As a precautionary measure, it was decided to admit her to the hospital and to place her hip and leg in traction. She remained in traction for eleven days, at the end of which time more X-rays were taken. The X-rays again revealed no fracture. She was released, but cautioned that she would have pain for a time, but it ceased after two or three months. In September of 1961, pain in the area of her left hip returned. She mentioned the pain to the doctors at the hospital out-patient clinic during her periodic visits there for other complaints. Her pain, and with it her complaints, grew, however, and in the Spring of 1962 the doctors at the hospital decided to refer her to the Orthopedics section for examinations and X-rays. Mrs. Beech claims that after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gess v. US, Civil Action No. 93-D-0913-N
...v. United States, 744 F.2d 771, 773 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Coyne v. United States, 411 F.2d 987 (5th Cir.1969)); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1965); see also Price, 775 F.2d at 1494 (citing Lavellee v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir.1980)) (holding that a medical malpracti......
-
Phillips v. United States, Civ. A. No. 79-551-8.
...g., Ramirez v. United States, 567 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1977); Hicks v. United States, 511 F.2d 407 (D.C.Cir. 1975); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1965); Diaz Castro v. United States, 451 F.Supp. 959 (D. Puerto Rico 1978); Herring v. Knab, 458 F.Supp. 359 (S.D.Ohio 1978); Gree......
-
Tyminski v. United States, 72-1024
...v. United States, 411 F.2d 987, 988 (5th Cir. 1969); Brown v. United States, 353 F.2d 578, 579 (9th Cir. 1965); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872, 874 (5th Cir. 1965); Kossick v. United States, supra; Hungerford v. United States, These courts have reasoned that a rule requiring federal c......
-
Berry v. Branner
...(1 Cir.1959) cited by majority in Vaughn v. Langmack; Kuhne v. United States, 250 F.Supp. 523 (E.D.Tenn.N.D.1965); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872 (CA5 Tex.1965). 16 Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, 86 Idaho 485, 389 P.2d 224 (1964); inconsistent with Trimming v. Howard, 52 Idaho......
-
Gess v. US, Civil Action No. 93-D-0913-N
...v. United States, 744 F.2d 771, 773 (11th Cir.1984) (citing Coyne v. United States, 411 F.2d 987 (5th Cir.1969)); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1965); see also Price, 775 F.2d at 1494 (citing Lavellee v. Listi, 611 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir.1980)) (holding that a medical malpracti......
-
Phillips v. United States, Civ. A. No. 79-551-8.
...g., Ramirez v. United States, 567 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1977); Hicks v. United States, 511 F.2d 407 (D.C.Cir. 1975); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872 (5th Cir. 1965); Diaz Castro v. United States, 451 F.Supp. 959 (D. Puerto Rico 1978); Herring v. Knab, 458 F.Supp. 359 (S.D.Ohio 1978); Gree......
-
Tyminski v. United States, 72-1024
...v. United States, 411 F.2d 987, 988 (5th Cir. 1969); Brown v. United States, 353 F.2d 578, 579 (9th Cir. 1965); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872, 874 (5th Cir. 1965); Kossick v. United States, supra; Hungerford v. United States, These courts have reasoned that a rule requiring federal c......
-
Berry v. Branner
...(1 Cir.1959) cited by majority in Vaughn v. Langmack; Kuhne v. United States, 250 F.Supp. 523 (E.D.Tenn.N.D.1965); Beech v. United States, 345 F.2d 872 (CA5 Tex.1965). 16 Billings v. Sisters of Mercy of Idaho, 86 Idaho 485, 389 P.2d 224 (1964); inconsistent with Trimming v. Howard, 52 Idaho......