Opinion ID: 2981044
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: October 2007 Lawsuit

Text: Last, Cobbs contends that filing this lawsuit in October 2007 should have prompted Pramstaller to review his file and authorize the cataract-removal surgery. Instead of immediately granting Cobbs’s surgery, Pramstaller moved for summary judgment, noting that his only involvement with the denial of Cobbs’s claims was his attendance at two Medical Committee meetings at which the Medical Committee denied Cobbs’s request for surgery. But Cobbs offers no reason why filing this lawsuit should have compelled Pramstaller to bypass the ordinary medicalrequest-authorization procedure. Cobbs continually saw physicians after the second denial of his claim, and Pramstaller’s denials invited Cobbs’s physicians to resubmit their requests if Cobbs’s condition worsened. Though Cobbs’s condition did worsen, his physicians elected not to pursue Medical Committee review after the Medical Committee’s second denial. Cobbs saw an optometrist three months after filing his lawsuit, and CMS approved his surgery the week after this visit. Finally, Cobbs did receive cataract removal surgery, on both eyes, in 2004 and 2008. At bottom, “federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess” medical judgments like Pramstaller - 15 - No. 10-2089 Cobbs v. Pramstaller, et al. and the Medical Committee’s decision to delay treatment. Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 169 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 860 n.5 (6th Cir. 1976)). While Cobbs’s need for the second operation seems evident in hindsight, we cannot conclude that Pramstaller’s decisions to delay surgery constituted deliberate indifference in light of his limited knowledge.