Reposh v. Sellers et al
| Daniel J Reposh |
| Catherine Sellers, Doyle, Howard, Perez, Monroe County of Penna., James Doherty, David Kessung, Donna Asure, Jennifer Mroz, Wilson, Wendy Johnson, Chet Huntley and PrimeCare Medical Inc. |
| 3:2012cv02524 |
| December 18, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Monroe |
| JV |
| Richard P. Conaboy |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
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
78
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Jennifer Mroz, Chet Huntley, 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Catherine Sellers, Donna Asure, Russell Doyle, Philip Diliberto, David Kessling, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, James Howard, 67 MOTION to Substitute Party Pursuant to FRCP 25(a)(1) filed by Daniel J. Reposh, 75 MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 25 (a) (1) filed by Jennifer Mroz, Catherine Sellers, Russell Doyle, Monroe County, Pennsylvania, James Howard, Chet Huntley, Donna Asure, David Kessling, Philip Diliberto. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick on 4/6/2016. (cw)
|
|
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)This Court agrees that any allegation that the examination and treatment provided by Mroz was negligent would not support a § 1983 claim of deliberate indifference under Estelle. However, the allegations in the Amended Complaint with respect to a one week delay in Mrozs initial examination and the additional delay in a follow up visit after the taking of x-rays arguably supports a claim of deliberate indifference. Moreover, this Court h as not been provided with sufficient factual evidence as to the purported determination by Mroz that Plaintiff no longer needed to be seen by a specialist although it had previously decided that plaintiff should be referred for evaluation and treatme nt by a specialist. Clearly, if Mroz cancelled a previously scheduled appointment with a specialist for a non-medical reason a cognizable basis for a deliberate indifference claim would be established. Based upon an application of Estelle to those considerations, the Amended Complaint to the extent that it seeks to establish liability against PA Mroz is sufficient at this stage in the proceeding to withstand the request for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). An appropriate Order will enter. re 38 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 9/19/14. (cc)
|
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 Pennsylvania Middle 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.
