
    Scott FOLINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph PORCELLI, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-13967
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 12, 2013.
    Roy D. Wasson, Annabel C. Majewski, Wasson & Associates, Chartered, Miami, FL, Frank D. Butler, Matthew A. Prulett, Frank D. Butler, PA, Pinellas Park, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Allen Von Spiegelfeld, Banker Lopez Gassier, PA, Tampa, FL, for Defendant Appellee.
    Before TJOFLAT, HULL and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This is an admiralty case. It arises out of a collision between two jet skis, one owned and operated by the plaintiff, Scott Folino, the other owned and operated by the defendant, Joseph Porcelli. Dr. Folino claimed that Mr. Porcelli’s negligence caused the collision; Mr. Porcelli claimed that Dr. Folino’s negligence was the cause. After receiving testimony from the parties and their experts on maritime navigation and the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collision at Sea 1972 (“COLREGS” or “Rules of the Road”), the District Court found that the parties were equally at fault for the collision. And after receiving evidence from both sides on Dr. Folino’s injuries, his past and future medical expenses, and his lost wages, the court found that Dr. Folino had incurred $28,687.45 in actual medical expenses, that he failed to prove that he would incur future medical expenses, and that he had incurred lost wages in the sum of $12,000 — for a total damages sum of $40,687.45. The court then reduced that sum by 50% and gave Dr. Folino judgment for $20,343.73.

Dr. Folino appeals the judgment, asking us to reverse the District Court’s findings of joint liability because the court misapplied the COLREGS, and to remand the case for a reassessment of damages to include future medical expenses and adequate compensation for lost wages.

As Dr. Folina acknowledges, we review the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of law de novo. We find no error in the court’s application of the COLREGS to the facts; nor do we find clear error in the court’s findings of fact regarding future medical expenses and lost wages. The judgment of the District Court is accordingly

AFFIRMED.  