Leavitt v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that the effects of treatment decisions may be relevant to consideration of the subjective component of the Eighth Amendment
• stating that “[b]ased on [the previously described] series of events, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that [an employee of the defendant corporation] acted with deliberate indifference” and, consequently, affirming a grant of summary judgment in that employee’s favor
• finding that a genuine question of material fact existed with respect to whether a defendant was deliberately indifferent in not prescribing medication for HIV/AIDS where there was evidence that defendant “had a financial interest” in not prescribing the drug
• stating that an Eighth Amendment violation occurs when the medical care provided is \so inadequate as to constitute an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or [is] repugnant to the conscience of mankind\ (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 105-06)
• rejecting deliberate indifference claim based on theory that third-party correctional medicine providers “ought to have been more proactive in following up on” the inmate’s care
• affirming grant of summary judgment to a medical provider who ordered a follow-up appointment that never ultimately occurred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).