Sarah Sandoval v. the Center for Innovative Gyn Care, Pc; Natalya Danilyants, M.d.

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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., 58 F.4th 774, 784 (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.” Id. We review
the district court’s denial of the Rule 50(b) motion challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence de novo. Id. 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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --