USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1610

SARAH SANDOVAL,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THE CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE GYN CARE, PC; NATALYA DANILYANTS, M.D.,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cv-01599-PJM)

Submitted: January 22, 2024 Decided: March 5, 2024

Before GREGORY and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Benjamin S. Vaughan, German A. Rodriguez, ARMSTRONG, DONOHUE, CEPPOS, VAUGHAN & RHOADES, CHARTERED, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant Natalya Danilyants, M.D. J. Kristen Wiggins, Michael K. Wiggins, WHARTON, LEVIN, EHRMANTRAUT & KLEIN, P.A., Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant The Center for Innovative GYN Care, P.C. George S. Tolley, III, DUGAN, BABIJ, TOLLEY & KOHLER, LLC, Timonium, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for Sarah Sandoval on her

claim against The Center for Innovative Gyn Care, PC (CIGC) and Natalya Danilyants,

M.D., for medical malpractice. After trial, the district court denied CIGC’s and Danilyants’

renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). CIGC and

Danilyants appeal and argue that the district court erred in denying this motion because

Sandoval did not present sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that they

caused her injuries. We affirm.

When, as here, the “the loser of a jury trial challenges the verdict under [Fed. R.

Civ. P.] 50(b), the question is whether a jury, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the winning party, could have properly reached the conclusion reached by this

jury.” Wiener v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2023)

(cleaned up). “Because [Sandoval] won at trial, all disputed facts must be construed in

h[er] favor and [s]he must be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences.”

We review

the district court’s denial of the Rule 50(b) motion challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence de novo.

Having reviewed the facts adduced at trial in the light most favorable

to Sandoval, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Appellants

caused her injuries. We reject as without merit their appellate arguments challenging this

conclusion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Sandoval v. Ctr. for

Innovative Gyn Care, PC, No. 8:17-cv-01599-PJM (D. Md. May 10, 2022). We dispense

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3