Nurse practitioner, physician
Area of Law:
Civil Rights 42 USC 1983, claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical need, retaliation
Benefit of Using Chapman Law Group:
Chapman Law Group was able to secure an early dismissal of the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) due to deficiencies in the Complaint.
The Court dismissed all claims against our clients, determining that an ingrown toenail was not a serious medical need. The Court also determined that the facts — including Plaintiff’s admitted refusal of the medical care offered and his disagreement with the treatment plan — did not provide a basis for a deliberate indifference claim. Likewise, Plaintiff did not allege sufficient facts to support a retaliation claim.
This information is a sample of our past results. Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results. Every case is different and each case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits. The circumstances of your case may differ from the results provided. The information provided has not been reviewed or approved by the State Bar of Michigan.