Timothy Hutchinson v. United States

Good Law
841 F.2d 966·1988 WL 19276·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 3033
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 10, 198886-1970California724 words

Opinion

Opinion

Farris, J.

Timothy Hutchinson developed aseptic necrosis after doctors at the United States Health Services Hospital treated his asthma with prednisone. Hutchinson sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the doctors should not have treated him with prednisone and that they should have warned him of the risk of developing aseptic necrosis. After a bench trial, the district court ruled against Hutchinson. Hutchinson now appeals that portion of the ruling which dealt with the doctors’ failure to warn.

Hutchinson contends that the district court misinterpreted California law in two respects. First, after Hutchinson had produced evidence of the doctors’ nondisclosure of risks, the district court failed to require the United States to produce evidence that would justify the nondisclosure. Second, the district court assumed that the doctors’ duty to warn depended on whether doctors in the community would have customarily provided warnings in the same situation. We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of state law. Matter of McLinn, 739 F.2d 1395, 1397-98 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc).

At trial, Hutchinson showed that the doctors did not disclose the risk of developing…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.