Ramos v. Patnaude
SimpleOriginal

Summary

Pretrial detainee Ramos sued Dr. Patnaude for deliberate indifference to severe heroin withdrawal. Despite conditions, the First Circuit upheld summary judgment, finding no evidence of indifference beyond possible negligence.

2011 | Federal Juristiction

Ramos v. Patnaude

Keywords Pretrial detainee; Ramos; Dr. Patnaude; deliberate indifference; heroin withdrawal; First Circuit; summary judgment; negligence
Open Case as PDF

Summary

A pretrial detainee, Mr. Ramos, initiated a legal action against Dr. Patnaude, alleging deliberate indifference concerning severe heroin withdrawal. The First Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the summary judgment previously granted, determining that the presented evidence did not establish deliberate indifference, indicating only potential negligence.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A pretrial detainee, Mr. Ramos, filed a lawsuit against Dr. Patnaude, alleging deliberate indifference concerning his severe heroin withdrawal symptoms. However, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision for summary judgment, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference, only potential negligence.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

An individual named Ramos, who was being held before trial, filed a lawsuit against Dr. Patnaude. The lawsuit claimed Dr. Patnaude showed purposeful disregard for Ramos's severe heroin withdrawal symptoms. Even with the reported circumstances, the First Circuit Court upheld a previous ruling that dismissed the case. The court determined there was no evidence of intentional neglect, only a possibility of carelessness.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

A person named Ramos was in jail before a trial. Mr. Ramos sued a doctor, Dr. Patnaude. Mr. Ramos said the doctor did not care when he was very sick from stopping heroin. A court looked at the case. The court decided that the doctor did not ignore Mr. Ramos on purpose. The court said there was no proof the doctor meant to ignore Mr. Ramos, only that a mistake might have happened. The court agreed with the doctor.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

640 F.3d 485 (2011)

Highlights