Correctional law is a very complicated area of litigation, requiring significant skill and experience. Handling these claims requires exceptional knowledge of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and all its pitfalls and unique characteristics; many plaintiff’s firms don’t understand enough about how various statutes work with one another, thus leading to case dismissal.

Whether the claim is brought by counsel or a pro se inmate, successful defense depends on counsel understanding all areas of the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1997e, and the interplay between each. Failure to vigorously defend these claims may subject you to punitive damages.

Among the types of correctional law claims that we handle:

• • Cruel and Unusual Punishment
  • Failure to Monitor
  • Failure to Train
  • Deliberate Indifference
  • Denial of Health Care
  • Excessive Force
  • Gross Negligence
  • Hepatitis C
  • Improper Procedure
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Suicide
  • Unlawful Detention
  • Utilization Review
  • Wrongful Death Actions 

These are just a few examples of state and federal cases for which we’ve succeeded on behalf of correctional healthcare providers: 

• • Michigan Court of Appeals: Negligence Claims Can’t Be Constitutionalized: In a lawsuit against our medical personnel clients, our correctional law attorneys argued successfully that allegations of negligence, gross negligence or “an inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care” do not arrive at the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed in an April 2020 decision.
  • County Jail Medical Providers Sued for Deliberate Indifference After OD; Claims Dismissed: Plaintiff’s decedent had a history of mental health and substance abuse issues. After more than a week in the special housing unit without incident, decedent entered general population, then died from an overdose of multiple prescription medications, including opioids. After deposing our clients, we successfully persuaded plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss her claims with prejudice. This result saved our clients considerable resources by avoiding trial and also the prospect of extensive appeals.
  • Jury Delivers No-Cause in Suit Against Medical Providers for Alleged Delay in Treatment: Medical experts testified Plaintiff’s first assessment on a Friday was within normal limits, justifying a referral to sick call for Monday morning rather than over the weekend. Chapman Law Group was able to prove the physician was not aware of Plaintiff’s condition, which resulted in a ruptured appendix and therefore did not consciously disregard his health. A federal jury took 28 minutes to return a “No Cause” verdict for both the nurse and the physician.
  • Three Physicians Granted Summary Judgment in Prison Death Case: Plaintiff’s decedent died from an atypical abdominal aortic aneurysm after having seen multiple medical providers over the course of many months with nonspecific gastrointestinal complaints. The three doctor defendants were determined not to be deliberately indifferent, as they assessed and treated the nonspecific symptoms that the patient exhibited.
  • Inmate Sued Physicians for Failure to Treat MS; No-Cause, Dismissal Issued: Plaintiff, who had multiple sclerosis, claimed Defendants collectively failed to comply with the applicable standards of care and conduct a thorough workup and/or referral to specialists for further review of his condition. Plaintiff was unable to establish that injuries or damages were proximately caused by the negligence or wrongdoing of the defendant physicians. A no-cause ruling was issued on the state claim, and the federal claim was dismissed.
  • Medical Professionals Vindicated After Being Sued for Indifference to Medical Needs: Plaintiff’s decedent suffered from end-stage liver disease (ESLD) and several related complications of the disease. Plaintiff alleged the medical provider failed to order follow-up specialist referrals to monitor the decedent’s ESLD. The Court granted summary judgment based on new legal authority issued in federal appellate court. Defendant doctors were not deliberately indifferent under the court’s new test because their medical judgment was reasonable and did not demonstrate the level of obduracy and wantonness required to prove a constitutional violation.
  • Lawsuit for Failure to Treat MS, Seizures Didn’t Meet Criteria; Case Dismissed: Defendants maintained that Plaintiff inmate did not meet the criteria for MS and was simply drug seeking. In addition, defense contended the proper diagnosis was pseudo seizure, a psychiatric diagnosis that is best treated through a psychiatrist. After a dozen or more depositions, several briefs and a summary disposition motion, the court agreed and dismissed the case 45 days before trial.
  • Inmate Sued Prison Doctors Over Disagreement in Treatment; Case Dismissed: Plaintiff claimed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when the prison medical staff refused to treat him for chronic depression and suicidal tendencies, an elbow injury, and Hepatitis C. Chapman Law Group contended that the inmate’s deliberate indifference claim failed because it was a mere disagreement over his treatments, and a federal appellate court panel agreed.
  • Medical Provider Acted Appropriately, Patient’s Death More Result of Old Age: Plaintiff’s estate alleged that, had Defendant diagnosed a surgical abdomen earlier, Plaintiff’s decedent would not have died following a surgery that discovered a cancerous tumor invading the bowel. Defendant argued that client’s actions on day one of patient’s hospital stay were not negligent, and that patient’s death was more the result of her age and health condition and not a result of client’s actions. After just 11 minutes of deliberating, the jury reached a no-cause verdict.
  • Defendant Overcomes Claims of Failure to Refer to Specialist, Provide Pain Meds: Plaintiff sued Defendant medical provider, alleging his deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs by not providing sufficient pain mediation; not ordering that she stay in the prison infirmary; and not referring her to an orthopedic surgeon sooner. The court granted dismissal, finding that such a claim is not cognizable where the underlying claim is one pursuant to § 1983.
  • Prisoner Argued Change in Medication Led to Fall, Spine Injury; Summary Judgment Entered: Plaintiff was placed on Lantus one month before being incarcerated in the county jail. The on-duty physician changed Plaintiff’s medication from Lantus to NPH 70/30. Plaintiff became dizzy and fell, hit his head, and suffered a fractured cervical spine. Plaintiff claimed that Lantus was discontinued to save money with no legitimate medical purpose. The court disagreed, and the case was dismissed following our summary judgment motion.
  • Plaintiff Alleged Deliberate Indifference to Medical Need; Early Dismissal Obtained: The Court determined Plaintiff’s allegations that he received insufficient treatment for a plantar wart were not sufficient to state a deliberate indifference claim. 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.
  • Jury: Prison Physician Assistant Not Liable for Deliberate Indifference to ‘Broken Hand Symptoms’: A pro se prisoner alleged that our client, the physician assistant, was deliberately indifferent to “broken hand symptoms” when treating a bite wound on the prisoner’s hand. The physician assistant, an expert correctional medicine physician, and other witnesses testified to not seeing any sign of a fracture at the time of the initial visit. A federal jury found in favor of our client.
  • Correctional Health Care Company Dismissed from Potential Class-Action Diet Case: A prisoner sued our client, a correctional health care company, alleging that the prison diet violates the U.S. Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We contended that that was not part of the correctional health care company’s role per the contract nor per Department of Corrections policy. All counts against the correctional health care company were dismissed.