Julie Helphenstine v. Lewis County

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that delaying treatment by sending an overnight fax that would not be reviewed by a physician for hours could be sufficient to prove deliberate indifference under Brawner
• holding that jury could conclude that doctor was deliberately indifferent, because doctor “knew that Helphenstine was in distress and knew that he needed treatment that only a hospital could provide”
• affirming that Kingsley, as interpreted by Brawner, required courts to “lower the subjective component from actual knowledge to recklessness”
• affirming that Kingsley, as interpreted by Brawner, required courts to “lower the subjective component from actual knowledge to recklessness”
• affirming that Kingsley, as interpreted by Brawner, required courts to “lower the subjective component from actual knowledge to recklessness”
• affirming that Kingsley, as interpreted by Brawner, required courts to “lower the subjective component from actual knowledge to recklessness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Julie Helphenstine v. Lewis County

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Julie Helphenstine v. Lewis County
  Sixth Circuit· 2023-04-18· cited 6×
• Julie Helphenstine v. Lewis County
  Sixth Circuit· 2023-04-18