Audrey Busfield v. United States of America

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 1, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
05-30973
AUDREY BUSFIELD,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette
No. 6:03-CV-1235
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal is from a judgment awarded to the plaintiff,
Audrey Busfield, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act for
injuries she suffered as a result of a negligent performance of a
chemical peel at a Veterans Administration Medical Center. We
affirm.
After an eight-day bench trial, the district court found in

-- 1 of 3 --

2
favor of the plaintiff with respect to each of the three counts of
negligence and further found that the negligence of the defendant,
the government, proximately caused damage to the plaintiff. The
government does not appeal liability.
The government appeals the district court’s decision awarding
a substantial amount of specific and general damages. In an
eighty-seven page ruling, the district court found that “[t]he
chemical peel that ultimately was performed reached into the
reticular dermis, leading to severe scarring, scar contracture, and
the plaintiff has suffered by all evidence and testimony presented
permanent disfiguring and muscle involvement.”
The record reveals that the chemical peel caused the skin on
Busfield’s face and neck to become scarred. This scar contracture
has pulled her head down and to the right. In the nine years since
the chemical peel, the plaintiff endured numerous plastic surgeries
and hundreds upon hundreds of visits to various health care
providers in an attempt to mitigate the physical and psychological
damage. The evidence further indicates that Busfield will undergo
more surgeries.
The government complains that the damages are excessive and
invokes the maximum recovery rule. The government also claims that
the general damages were duplicative of certain specific damages.
We have considered the arguments and find that the government has
not shown clear error, nor any error that requires reversal of the
district court’s judgment.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --