Hamilton v. Pike County, Kentucky et al
| Ray D. Hamilton |
| John and Jane Does 1-10, Waldridge, Southern Health Partners, Inc., Pike County, Kentucky and Rodney Scott |
| 7:2011cv00099 |
| June 16, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Pikeville Office |
| Pike |
| Amul R. Thapar |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
80
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: (1) Pike County, Kentucky and Rodney Scott's motion for summary judgment, R. 43 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (a) motion is GRANTED with respect to all of plaintiff's claims against Pike County, Kentucky. (b) motion is GRANTED with respect to pla's claims against Rodney Scott in his official capacity and pla's section 1983 claim against Rodney Scott in his personal capacity. (c) motion is GRANTED with r espect to pla's intentional infliction of emotional distress, tort of outrage, and statutory and administrative claims against Rodney Scott in his personal capacity. (d) Since dft Scott failed to properly move for summary judgment, pla's ne gligence and gross negligence claims will proceed to trial. (2) The medical dfts' motion for summary judgment, R. 45 , is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. (a) motion is GRANTED with respect to pla's section 1983 claim aga inst Southern Health Partners. (b) motion is DENIED with respect to pla's state law claims against Southern Health Partners. (c) motion is GRANTED with respect to pla's section 1983 claim against Tina Clevenger in her pers onal capacity. (d) motion is DENIED with respect to pla's state law claims against Tina Clevenger in her personal capacity. (e) motion is DENIED with respect to pla's section 1983 claim against Dr. Waldridge based on Dr. Wald ridge's actions in response to the telephone call from Nurse Ray on September 25, 2010. (f) motion is GRANTED with respect to pla's section 1983 claim against Dr. Waldridge based on Dr. Waldridge's examination and diagnosis o f pla in September 24, 2010. (g) motion is DENIED with respect to pla's section 1983 claim against Nurse Ray in her personal capacity based on her failure to accurately convey Hamilton's symptoms to Dr. Waldridge during their telepho ne call on September 25, 2010. (h) motion is GRANTED with respect to pla's section 1983 claim against Nurse Ray in her personal capacity based on her failure to take further action after reporting pla's symptoms to Dr. Waldridge duri ng their telephone call on September 25, 2010, and complying with Dr. Waldridge's instruction to provide pla with a multivitamin. (i) motion is DENIED with respect to pla's punitive damages claims against medical dfts. (3) Hamilton has until Friday, February 15, 2013, to identify and serve John and Jane Does 1-10. If he does not do so, those claims will be dismissed without prejudice. The pla's motions to strike, R. 73 and R. 74 , are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 2/11/2013. (RCB)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
61
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the medical defendants motion in limine, R. 44 , is GRANTED. Madeline LaMarre may not testify about 1) whether Dr. Waldridge breached the standard of care and 2) whether the medical staff's actions caused a specific medical condition. Signed by Judge Amul R. Thapar on 12/17/2012. (TDA)cc: COR
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
