Case Result: Prison Medical Provider Accused of Deliberate Indifference to Prisoner’s Chronic Issue
Summary judgment granted in prisoner’s claims that a prison medical provider was deliberately indifferent to a chronic gastrointestinal issue.
Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., LL.M.
Founding Shareholder
President & CEO
All Offices – Main Office Sarasota
6841 Energy Court
Sarasota, FL 34240
Phone: (941) 893-3449
Summary judgment granted in prisoner’s claims that a prison medical provider was deliberately indifferent to a chronic gastrointestinal issue.
Treatment notes, which indicated prison personnel had security issues in sending him elsewhere, did not establish that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs.
The court dismissed Plaintiff ’s claim, finding that such a claim is not cognizable where the underlying claim is one pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Many Variables are Involved in a Deliberate Indifference Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 per the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, there are several
Areas of Law:
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Correctional Healthcare
Venue:
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Judge:
Chief Judge Gerald Rosen
Facility:
Cotton Correctional
Allegations:
Plaintiff Colton contended that the physician ignored his alleged severe pain and allegations that his previous right inguinal hernia surgical repair had failed.
Plaintiff argued that he had significant pain and suffering for three years. He alleged he should have had inguinal hernia surgery as early as October 2009. He also demanded right inguinal hernia surgery.
Defense contended that plaintiff never reported pain and, in fact, a hernia that is not incarcerated or strangled is not a serious medical need. Pursuant to Napier v. Madison County, Plaintiff must produce expert support that a delay in treatment proximately caused additional damages.
Settlement History:
Plaintiff demanded $20,000. We rejected.
Trial:
Trial started on October 27, 2014, and ended October 29, 2014. At the close of Plaintiff’s proofs, we moved for a Directed Verdict. The court deferred until after defense proofs. Following defense proofs, the court granted the motion for Directed Verdict.
Bases for Relief:
The court accepted our argument that this was a Napier case and not a Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County case; therefore, Plaintiff needed medical testimony to support the fact that the medical condition worsened as a result of the delay. Plaintiff was unable to prove same.
Chance of Appeal:
60% chance Plaintiff will file a Pro Se appeal; 1% chance he will be successful.
Disclaimer:
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.
Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., LL.M.
Founding Shareholder
President & CEO
All Offices – Main Office Sarasota
6841 Energy Court
Sarasota, FL 34240
Phone: (941) 893-3449
Summary judgment granted in prisoner’s claims that a prison medical provider was deliberately indifferent to a chronic gastrointestinal issue.
Treatment notes, which indicated prison personnel had security issues in sending him elsewhere, did not establish that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s medical needs.
The court dismissed Plaintiff ’s claim, finding that such a claim is not cognizable where the underlying claim is one pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Many Variables are Involved in a Deliberate Indifference Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 per the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, there are several
Michigan OFFICE
1441 W Long Lake Road
Suite 310
Troy, MI 48098
T. 248.644.6326
F. 248.644.6324
CALIFORNIA OFFICE
5250 Lankershim Blvd.
Ste. 500
North Hollywood, CA 91601
T. 305.712.7177
FLORIDA OFFICES
6841 Energy Court
Suite 120
Sarasota, FL 34240
T. 941.893.3449
701 Waterford Way
Suite 340
Miami, FL 33126
T. 305.712.7177
Practice Areas
Attorneys
© CHAPMAN LAW GROUP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED