green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
22.0 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2021–2022 · 2 courts ·
…privately employed prison physician is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified immunity.
at p. 1265
✓
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
CASSADY v. DOZIER
privately employed prison physician is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McCrimmon v. Centurion of Florida, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
privately employed prison physician is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
O'Connor v. Backman
privately employed prison physician is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified immunity.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gladney v. Burks (INMATE 1)
Hinson v. Edmond, 205 F.3d 1264, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that a physician employed by a private, for-profit corporation contracted to provide medical care to inmates “is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified immunity.”); Edwards v. Ala. Dep’t of Corrs., 81 F.Supp.2d 1242, 1254 (M.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. Salter
See Swann v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d 834, 837 (11th Cir. 2004) ("The parties agree that as a private entity, SHP [a private corporation employed by the County to provide medical care to inmates at the county jail] is not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense."); Hinson v. Edmond, 205 F.3d 1264, 1265 (11th 3 submitted Special Reports, which include evidentiary support in the form of affidavits, medical records, and prison records.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker-El v. Naphcare Medical Services, Inc.
See Swann v. Southern Health Partners, Inc., 388 F.3d 834, 837 (11th Cir.2004) ('-'The parties agree that as a private entity, SHP [a private corporation employed by the county to provide medical care to inmates at the county jail] is not entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense.”); Hinson v. Edmond, 205 F.3d 1264, 1265 (11th Cir.2000) (a "privately employed prison physician [] is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified immunity”); Edwards v. Alabama Dep't of Corrections, 81 F.Supp.2d 1242, 1254 (M.D.Ala.2000) (a "private entity” contracting with a state to provide medical …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Randal J. Chatham v. Colonel Blake Adcock
See also Hinson v. Edmond, 192 F.3d 1342 , 1345 (11th Cir.1999) (noting that it is well-settled that “medical malpractice-negligence by a physician-is insufficient to form the basis of a claim for deliberate indifference”), amended by 205 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir.2000); Adams v. Poag, 61 F.3d 1537, 1543 (11th Cir.1995) (noting that “[m]ere negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition is an insufficient basis” for a deliberate indifference claim).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fitzgerald Columbus HINSON, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roderick E. EDMOND, M.D., Defendant-Appellant
v.
Roderick E. EDMOND, M.D., Defendant-Appellant
98-9178.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 7, 2000.
William P. Tinkler, Jr., Dawn M. Died-rich, William Tinkler, Jr., P.C., Decatur, GA, Deana L. Simon, Drewk, Eckl & Farnham, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellant., Timothy Robert Brennan, James Anthony Eidson, Eidson & Associates, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Edmondson, Birch, Owens.
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
BY THE COURT:
Our opinion in Fitzgerald Columbus Hinson v. Roderick E. Edmond, reported at 192 F.3d 1342 is revised as follows:
1. The second sentence of the first paragraph of the opinion is amended to read:
Because we conclude that the defendant, due to his status as a privately employed prison physician, is ineligible to advance the defense of qualified immunity, we AFFIRM the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings.
2. The final five paragraphs of the opinion, those appearing at pages 1348-49, are withdrawn. We lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits because they are not “inextricably interwoven” with our decision on qualified immunity. See generally Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 1212, 131 L.Ed.2d 60 (1995); Foy v. Schantz, Schatzman & Aaronson, P.A., 108 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir.1997); Harris v. Board of Educ., 105 F.3d 591, 594 (11th Cir.1997). In the place of the stricken paragraphs, we substitute this paragraph:
We affirm the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment: the qualified immunity doctrine does not apply. We remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.