Ronald W. Chapman Sr., M.P.A., LL.M.
Founding Shareholder
President & CEO
Complex Healthcare Fraud, Qui Tam,
Uninsured Physician Matters, Compliance
All Offices – Main Office Sarasota
6841 Energy Court
Sarasota, FL 34240
Phone: (941) 893-3449
The Court determined Plaintiff’s allegations that he received insufficient treatment for a plantar wart were not sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim.
The Court 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.
Our attorneys were able to meet with the nurse and obtain an affidavit that supported the administrator’s statement that he was relying on the advice of the treating physician.
Professionals:
Physicians
Primary Issue:
Plaintiff alleged a prison medical provider was deliberately indifferent to a chronic gastrointestinal issue.
Facts:
Plaintiff alleged he suffered from Hirschsprung’s disease and demanded that doctors provide him with a special diet to alleviate symptoms of the disease. Evidence from the prison showed the inmate’s desired “special diet” consisted of hamburgers and fried chicken.
Procedural History:
Initially, Plaintiff was represented by an attorney who failed to properly answer discovery requests from our clients. We sought sanctions, and the trial court ruled that Plaintiff’s deficient discovery warranted sanctioning Plaintiff by precluding him from seeking any monetary damages. As a result of the sanction, Plaintiff fired his attorney and continued to thwart discovery.
Result:
The trial court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact and granted summary judgment to our client. Plaintiff appealed but failed to provide the required filing fee. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute his claim in a timely fashion.
Areas of Law:
Correctional Medicine
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.
"*" indicates required fields
The Court determined Plaintiff’s allegations that he received insufficient treatment for a plantar wart were not sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim.
The Court 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.
Our attorneys were able to meet with the nurse and obtain an affidavit that supported the administrator’s statement that he was relying on the advice of the treating physician.
