# Harry J. Weeks, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. L.R. Chaboudy, M.D., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · April 16, 1993 · 984 F.2d 185

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483816

## Case

- **Full name:** Harry J. WEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. L.R. CHABOUDY, M.D., Defendants Appellee/Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 16, 1993
- **Citations:** 984 F.2d 185
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Merritt, Norris, Batchelder
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483816

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming imposition of joint and several liability on a concurrent tortfeasor, where the district court held that defendant proximately caused plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights to be violated by denying plaintiff, who was a paralyzed inmate, access to “the only area of the …
- holding a prison medical director who did not provide a paraplegic inmate with a wheelchair liable for damages under the Eighth Amendment
- finding an Eighth Amendment violation where a doctor did not admit a paralyzed inmate to the prison infirmary

## Opinion text

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
April 16, 1993.
The court having received a petition for rehearing en banc, and the petition having been circulated not only to the original panel members but also to all other active judges of this court, and no judge of this court having requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing has been referred to the original hearing panel.
Plaintiff earlier petitioned for rehearing, asserting that the Order and accompanying Opinion entered by this Court on January 26, 1993 did not address Defendant’s cross-appeal of the attorney’s fees awarded by the district court. We did not reverse the district court’s award; it should therefore be considered affirmed. The defendant’s challenge to the fee award was based directly on his challenge to the underlying merits of the case. Since the district court’s finding of liability was affirmed, the basis for defendant’s cross appeal on the award of attorney’s fees no longer exists.
Plaintiff also requests that we remand for an award of attorney’s fees for work done on the appeal. Since the district court will have the opportunity to consider on remand the award of additional fees regarding further work done in this case, we will not address the issue at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, plaintiff’s petition is denied.
Defendant has also petitioned for rehearing en banc. The panel has reviewed the defendant’s petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. Accordingly, defendant’s petition is also denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483816. Public record. Not legal advice.