You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Petteruti v. David Grant Medical Center

Citation: 52 F. App'x 371Docket: No. 01-16060; D.C. No. CV-00-03230-VRW

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 8, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Christina Petteruti appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants concerning her medical malpractice claim related to her Hepatitis B vaccination. The district court's order is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Winter v. United States, 244 F.3d 1088 (2001), which the parties and the district court had not considered. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case, and each party is responsible for their own costs on appeal. The disposition is deemed not suitable for publication and cannot be cited except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Costs on Appeal

Application: Each party is assigned responsibility for their own costs incurred during the appeal process.

Reasoning: No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case, and each party is responsible for their own costs on appeal.

Non-Precedential Disposition

Application: The court explicitly states that the disposition is not suitable for publication, limiting its citation in future cases.

Reasoning: The disposition is deemed not suitable for publication and cannot be cited except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Reconsideration of Summary Judgment

Application: The district court's summary judgment was vacated and the case was remanded for reconsideration due to the oversight of a relevant Ninth Circuit decision.

Reasoning: The district court's order is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Winter v. United States, 244 F.3d 1088 (2001), which the parties and the district court had not considered.