Wilhelm v. Rotman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that 15 negligence in failing to provide adequate medical care does not give rise to a constitutional 16 violation
• holding that, because the defendant did not believe 22 plaintiff was suffering from a hernia, his decision to not operate was a mere “negligent 23 misdiagnosis” rather than deliberate indifference
• noting that one doctor's difference of opinion with another doctor’s opinion is “insufficient to establish deliberate indifference”
• noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates the familiar standard 6 applied in the context of failure to state a claim under [Rule] 12(b)(6)”
• noting that § 1915A screening “incorporates the familiar standard 7 applied in the contest of failure to state a claim under [Rule] 12(b)(6)”
• noting that a provider is not indifferent to a plaintiff's needs simply by reaching a different diagnosis than another provider

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).