Lopez v. USA

── Lopez v. USA ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS L. LOPEZ Sr. and JUANITA S. No. 24-5529 LOPEZ, individually and as successors-in- D.C. No. interest to Carlos S. Lopez II, 2:21-cv-10036-MRW Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael R. Wilner, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 24, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and TRAUM, District Judge.** Carlos S. Lopez II joined the United States Army in 2003, served three tours of duty in the Middle East, and was honorably discharged in 2009. During his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Anne R. Traum, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation. service, Lopez saw combat and sustained a traumatic brain injury. After his discharge, Lopez moved to Los Angeles and received medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In May 2018, VA doctors prescribed Lopez gabapentin, an anticonvulsant, to treat back pain. A few weeks later, Lopez sought care from a VA walk-in clinic in downtown Los Angeles, reporting frequent nightmares that he had trouble distinguishing from reality, difficulty sleeping, and recurring thoughts that he was a “bad person” who was “capable of doing awful things.” Lopez, who suffered from service-related post-traumatic stress disorder, committed suicide five days later. His parents, Carlos and Juanita Lopez, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), alleging professional negligence on the part of VA staff. After a three-day bench trial, the district court rejected plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Montana v. Talen Mont., LLC, 130 F.4th 675, 686 (9th Cir. 2025). We affirm. 1. The district court applied the appropriate standard of care. The FTCA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for tort claims based on “personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission” of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. 28 U.S.C. 2 24-5529 § 1346(b)(1). FTCA claims are governed by the law of the State where the act or omission occurred. Id. § 2674. California law requires medical providers to exercise the “degree of skill, knowledge, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of their profession under similar circumstances.” Barris v. County of Los Angeles, 972 P.2d 966, 971 n.1 (Cal. 1999) (quoting Alef v. Alta Bates Hosp., 6 Cal. Rptr. 2d 900, 904 (Ct. App. 1992)). A physician breaches this duty if his actions deviate from “the standard of care that his peers consider appropriate in the situation.” Burgess v. Superior Court, 831 P.2d 1197, 1206 (Cal. 1992) (quoting Paul C. Weiler, Medical Malpractice on Trial 25 (1991)). The standard of care in a medical malpractice action “is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of experts” and typically can be proved only by expert