Opinion ID: 2616097
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: claim of mistreatment

Text: Ms. Hoopes next claims that Dr. Hammargren was negligent in his treatment modalities. She asserts that the prescriptions for various drugs on a frequent basis was improper. The fact that Dr. Hammargren prescribed various drugs to Ms. Hoopes is not in dispute. Dr. Hammargren admitted that he monitored drugs prescribed from his office to a degree only. Ms. Hoopes claimed that when Dr. Hammargren would come to her home for a sexual encounter, he would bring a number of drugs. Most often, she says, he brought quaaludes. Dr. Hammargren admitted that he was unable to recall whether or not he provided any drugs during these encounters. On appeal, Dr. Hammargren asserts that Ms. Hoopes' expert testified that his methods [of treatment] were appropriate. Our review of the record, however, reveals that Dr. Connors (Hoopes' expert) addressed only the issue of negligent misdiagnosis. Additionally, Dr. Hammargren failed to introduce evidence to show that the prescriptions for various drugs were consistent with the applicable standard of care. Therefore, the record is devoid of evidence to support the district court's ruling that Dr. Hammargren's treatment modality was appropriate. Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's ruling was correct. We feel there are genuine issues of material fact related to the claim of mistreatment.