“Our fees are reasonable and we are always here to help you.”

Civil Rights Trials

  • The following information is a sample of our past results. Not all results obtained by Chapman and Associates, P.C. have been provided.
  • The results are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the lawyer. 
  • Every case is different and each case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits. The circumstances of your case may differ from the results provided.
  • The information provided has not been reviewed or approved by the Florida Bar.
By clicking on the case titles, you are acknowledging that you understand the above disclaimer and that you wish to view information about our results.

Frank Howard v Client

  • Area of Law – Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. §1983
  • Venue – US District Court – Western District of Michigan
  • Verdict – No Cause of Action
  • Details – Plaintiff alleges that client was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs because he failed to diagnose a ruptured Achilles tendon. Client believed injury was an ankle sprain, partly based on Plaintiff’s ability to flex and extend his ankle. Four weeks later Plaintiff saw another doctor about pain in his ankle, which was diagnosed as a ruptured Achilles tendon. It was argued that during those four weeks Plaintiff saw client and other health care providers for complaints about pain in leg, hip and back but never mentioned ankle pain. Evidence was also used to demonstrate that Plaintiff was seen walking without a limp during those four weeks. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of our client.
  • Attorneys – Ronald Chapman

Michael Steven Holmes v Clients

  • Area of Law – Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. §1983
  • Venue – US District Court – Western District of Michigan
  • Verdict – Judgment in Favor of Clients
  • Details – Plaintiff brought claim against Medical Director of Utilization and others claiming that they were deliberately indifferent having denied specialty care request for surgery for recurrent neuroma and right ulnar neuropathy. It was argued that clients did not wantonly disregard Plaintiff’s medical condition and the jury rendered a verdict in favor of our clients.
  • Attorneys – Ronald Chapman, David Mammel, Kimberley Koester

Timothy Norris v Client

  • Area of Law – Civil Rights 42 U.S.C. §1983
  • Venue – US District Court – Western District of Michigan
  • Verdict – Judgment in Favor of Clients
  • Details – Plaintiff brought a suit claming that client was deliberately indifferent to his medical need. Plaintiff crushed his finger in a cell door and was seen by client on two occasions to receive pain medicine and change dressing. Plaintiff never complained to client about pain. In order to claim deliberate indifference you must show two elements: 1) that defendant was aware or should have been aware of a serious medical need, and 2) that defendant, being aware of that need, acted with deliberate indifference. It was shown to the jury that client was given pain medicine and did not complain of pain to client. Therefore client was not aware of a serious medical need and did not act indifferent. Jury rendered a verdict in favor of our client.
  • Attorneys – Ronald Chapman, David Mammel, Brian Richtarcik

Back to Top

Attorneys

  • Our dedicated and exceptionally talented lawyers work together developing a collegial environment, working as a team to develop successful defense and trial strategies.
  • View Attorney Bios

Let Us Help You Now