Steven Steele v. Han Chul Choi

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that constitutional claim cannot be established simply by offering evidence that another medical professional would have chosen a different course of treatment
• evidence that some medical professionals would have chosen a different course of treatment is insufficient to make out a constitutional claim
• courts must “distinguish between deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners, on the one hand, and negligen[ce] in diagnosing or treating medical condi- tion, on the other,” and “only the former” violates the Eighth Amendment (citations omitted)
• “If the symptoms plainly called for a particular medical treatment—the leg is broken, so it must be set; the person is not breathing, so CPR must be administered—a doctor’s deliberate decision not to furnish the treatment might be actionable under § 1983.”
• “If the symptoms plainly called for a particular medical treatment—the leg is broken, so it must be set; the person is not breathing, so CPR must be administered—a doctor’s deliberate decision not to furnish the treatment might be actionable under § 1983.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).