Hathaway v. Coughlin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court committed reversible error where its erroneous jury instruction went “to the very heart of the plaintiff’s claim, and effectively preclude[d] 51 No. 22-558-cv a finding of liability where one may be warranted”
• stating that “ ‘mere medical malpractice’ is not tantamount to deliberate indifference”
• explaining that inadequacy in medical care is “sufficiently serious” if it produced “extreme pain”
• explaining that “the alleged deprivation must be sufficiently serious, in the sense that a condition of urgency, one that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain exists.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• noting that objective prong of a deliberate indifference claim is met where “a condition of urgency, one that may produce death, degeneration, or extreme pain exists” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• observing that “negligent malpractice do[es] not state a claim of deliberate indifference”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).