<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HUNDLEY LAW GROUP &#187; Federal &#8211; 7th Cir.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hundleylaw.com/category/case-law/federal-7th-cir/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hundleylaw.com</link>
	<description>Trial and Appellate Litigation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:55:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>One Claim of Fatal Medical Neglect of Prisoner Upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/11/one-claim-of-fatal-medical-neglect-of-prisoner-upheld/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/11/one-claim-of-fatal-medical-neglect-of-prisoner-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:00:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HLG</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Notebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal - 7th Cir.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deliberate indifference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prisoner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 1983]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 1983 Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary judgment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hundleylaw.com/?p=147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Gayton v. McCoy, No. 08-2187 (1/28/10) The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld summary judgment in favor of several of the defendants (certain prison officials and medical personnel) in a Section 1983 civil rights action. The court found that the defendants did not violate the plaintiff-prisoner&#8217;s due process rights by failing to provide adequate medical [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://eservices.isba.org/12all/lt/t_go.php?i=3732&amp;e=OTE4MDAzOA==&amp;l=-http--www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx--Q-submit--E-showbr--A-shofile--E-08-2187_003.pdf">Gayton v. McCoy</a>, No. 08-2187 (1/28/10) The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld summary judgment in favor of several of the defendants (certain prison officials and medical personnel) in a Section 1983 civil rights action. The court found that the defendants did not violate the plaintiff-prisoner&#8217;s due process rights by failing to provide adequate medical care resulting in plaintiff&#8217;s death from a serious heart condition. The defendants who were dismissed were found to have either had no contact with plaintiff or attempted to assist the plaintiff, thereby not displaying deliberate indifference. However, the court reinstated the case against one nurse defendant who was aware of plaintiff&#8217;s heart condition, but allegedly refused to see her despite plaintiff demonstrating symptoms consistent with serious heart condition. In addition, the court found that the trial court committed error in failing to consider the opinions of the plaintiff&#8217;s expert linking plaintiff&#8217;s vomiting with her heart condition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/11/one-claim-of-fatal-medical-neglect-of-prisoner-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.</title>
		<link>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/03/mason-v-smithkline-beecham-corp/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/03/mason-v-smithkline-beecham-corp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HLG</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Law Notebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal - 7th Cir.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[7th Cir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[products liability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hundleylaw.com/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., No. 08-2265 (February 23, 2010) The 7th Circuit held that the district court erred in granting defendant-drug manufacturer&#8217;s motion for summary judgment in state law claims alleging that defendant was negligent for failing to warn plaintiffs&#8217; decedent that taking Paxil increased risk of suicide among young adults.  The district court [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://eservices.isba.org/12all/lt/t_go.php?i=3775&amp;e=OTM4MDU5MQ==&amp;l=-http--www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx--Q-submit--E-showbr--A-shofile--E-08-2265_003.pdf">Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.</a>, No. 08-2265 (February 23, 2010) The 7th Circuit held that the district court erred in granting defendant-drug manufacturer&#8217;s motion for summary judgment in state law claims alleging that defendant was negligent for failing to warn plaintiffs&#8217; decedent that taking Paxil increased risk of suicide among young adults.  The district court had incorrectly relied upon the US Supreme Court&#8217;s Wyeth decision (129 SCt 1187), because in this case, the plaintiff&#8217;s claims were not preempted since defendant failed to establish – under the clear evidence standard – that the FDA would have rejected plaintiffs&#8217; proposed warning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hundleylaw.com/2010/03/mason-v-smithkline-beecham-corp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

