From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Abraham v. Digugleilmo

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 25, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-0058 (E.D. Pa. May. 25, 2010)

Summary

holding that deliberate indifference may be manifested by a denial of prescribed medical treatment

Summary of this case from Townsend v. Holt

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-0058.

May 25, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2010, in consideration of defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiff's responses, it is ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

1) Defendant Radle's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the claims against him are DISMISSED;
2) Defendant PHS's motion to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983 claim against it is DENIED;
3) Defendant Germaine's motion to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983 claim against her is DENIED;
4) Defendant Arias's motion to dismiss plaintiff's section 1983 claim against him is DENIED;
5) Defendants Germaine's and Arias's motion to dismiss plaintiff's medical malpractice claims sounding in tort against them is DENIED;
6) Defendants Germaine's and Arias's motion to dismiss plaintiff's medical malpractice claims sounding in contract against them is GRANTED and that claim against them is DISMISSED; and
7) Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's demand for attorney's fees in Counts III and IV is GRANTED and those demands are DISMISSED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his section 1983 claim against PHS is GRANTED. He should file any such amendment within fourteen days of the date of this Order.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties submit within fourteen days of the date of this Order additional briefing on the question of whether Pennsylvania law creates a cause of action for monetary damages for violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties agree on a discovery schedule and submit such schedule to the Court within fourteen days of the date of this Order.


Summaries of

Abraham v. Digugleilmo

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
May 25, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-0058 (E.D. Pa. May. 25, 2010)

holding that deliberate indifference may be manifested by a denial of prescribed medical treatment

Summary of this case from Townsend v. Holt

finding that plaintiff's allegations that he suffered from pain and swelling of a testicle but that the treating physician prescribed antibiotics "without examining plaintiff or administering tests to confirm the diagnoses" were sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference

Summary of this case from Mejía v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.

noting that although "[s]pecific details of the allegedly injurious policies are not necessary at this [motion to dismiss] stage, [] more is required than the bald statement that an injurious policy exists"

Summary of this case from Gibbons v. Montgomery Cnty.

applying Pennsylvania law

Summary of this case from Kerlinsky v. Main Line Hosps. Inc.
Case details for

Abraham v. Digugleilmo

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD KAMEL ABRAHAM, JR. v. DAVID DIGUGLEILMO, et al

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: May 25, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-0058 (E.D. Pa. May. 25, 2010)

Citing Cases

Townsend v. Holt

Nevertheless, Plaintiff's allegations sufficiently state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim…

Mejía v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp.

The prescription of medication for an underlying condition without any medical exam may be grounds for a…