Sistrunk v. Khan, 931 F. Supp. 2d 849

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, asserting a §1983 claim against jail physician Khan for deliberate indifference,

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Wheelchair necessity vs. crutches	Sistrunk needed a wheelchair.	Crutches were medically appropriate to build strength.	No medically necessary wheelchair; crutches appropriate
Deliberate indifference requirement	Khan disregarded serious medical need.	Decision based on medical judgment; not indifferent.	No deliberate indifference by Khan
Liability for the fall after crutches	Fall caused by crutches ordered by Khan.	Fall not a constitutional violation.	Fall not actionable under §1983; no constitutional violation
Timeliness of denied care claim after fall	Claim timely; continuation of care	Claim raised late; new argument barred	Untimely to add care-denial claim after fall
ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims	ADA/Rehabilitation Act violations.	Claim not viable; dispute about medical malpractice.	No viable ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference standard requires substantial risk to inmate health)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (dual requirement: objective serious medical need and subjective awareness)
Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir.2011) (professional judgment allowed unless a substantial departure)
Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir.2012) (prison physician may rely on medical judgment; not required to defer to prior treatment)
Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688 (7th Cir.2008) (prisoner not entitled to treatment of choice; adequate care suffices)