Lewis Stewart v. Romeo Aranas

background facts. Second, Judge Christen clarified that she concurred in the result reached by the majority only because defendants did not appeal the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis and left unchallenged the magistrate judge’s recommendation that a genuine issue existed regarding whether defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Judge Christen agreed with the majority that a reasonable official with subjective awareness of a factual predicate akin to the one reflected in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation would have violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights by continuing a treatment plan of “watchful waiting” after plaintiff’s condition became acute. Frank A. Toddre II (argued), Senior Deputy Attorney General; D. Randall Gilmer, Chief Deputy Attorney General; Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Las Vegas, Nevada; for Defendants- Appellants.

Andrew M. Lagomarsino (argued), Lagomarsino Law, Henderson, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION

SILER, Circuit Judge:

Mere disagreement with a medical treatment plan is not deliberate indifference. But continuation of the same treatment in the face of obvious failure is.…