Oscar Santiago v. Kurt Ringle

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that incarcerated plaintiff diagnosed with skin inflammation disorder and severe joint-pain condition who received some treatment but experienced delay in receiving all of the treatments prescribed by a specialist “dispute[d] the adequacy of the treatment he received”
• noting that the medication that the outside dermatologist recommended was \not part of the standard treatment\ for the prisoner's condition and that the prisoner did receive the recommended medication within less than a month
• explaining that the court assesses the medical need that the plaintiff experienced at the time the defendant took the challenged actions
• explaining that the court assesses the medical need that the plaintiff experienced at the time the defendant took the challenged actions
• holding that, if a need for medical treatment is not immediately obvious, its seriousness is evaluated under the “effect of the delay standard,” which requires the submission of verifying medical evidence to establish “the detrimental effect of the delay in medical treatment”
• finding that plaintiff could not meet objective component on claim alleging that doctor’s delay in providing dermatological care caused serious injury because plaintiff did not present “medical proof”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).