Areas of Law:
42 USC § 1983 — Deliberate Indifference
Plaintiff prison inmate alleged that he was denied proper medical treatment for his alleged cellulitis infection and alleged hernias, in violation of his Eighth Amendment constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Plaintiff contended that the prison healthcare physician and two physician assistants failed to provide proper treatment and failed to follow the alleged treatment plan of an outside physician. Plaintiff further alleged that the prison’s healthcare company contractor, which employed the individual healthcare providers, maintained unlawful policies, practices, and customs that caused the alleged violations of his constitutional rights.
Our Correctional Healthcare Law attorneys asserted that the prison healthcare physician and physician assistants regularly treated the inmate’s medical conditions and symptoms; performed X-rays and testing; provided and ordered proper medications; and transferred him to an outside hospital when his condition warranted it.
The court dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the healthcare company and all of the claims against the physician and one physician assistant. Specifically, the court found that there were no unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs, and no patterns of misconduct on the part of the healthcare company.
The court further determined that, based upon the facts, Plaintiff’s lawsuit failed to set forth proper allegations of wrongdoing against the healthcare providers, and that the prison physician properly exercised his own medical judgment in determining an appropriate treatment plan for the patient.
In rendering its ruling, the court struck nearly all of the Plaintiff’s inconceivable claims that were alleged to have occurred over a three-year period and dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary defendants. The only claim that remained concerned a single, one-day incident against one of the physician assistants — an allegation that also will be vigorously defended as the case continues to move forward.
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.