Blankenship v. Birch

785 F.3d 1174, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8173, 2015 WL 2237242
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedMay 13, 2015
DocketNo. 13-3296
StatusPublished

This text of 785 F.3d 1174 (Blankenship v. Birch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blankenship v. Birch, 785 F.3d 1174, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8173, 2015 WL 2237242 (7th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Petition for Rehearing filed by Plaintiff-Appellant on March 5, 2015, this court’s order of November 5, 2014 is amended as follows. In all other respects, all members of the original panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. No active judge called for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. Accordingly, in all other respects, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

1) In the third paragraph: Delete the words “Two months” in the fourth [1175]*1175sentence final sentence, delete the phrase “he reported no pain, and” and begin the sentence with “Dr. Birch.”
2) In the penultimate paragraph delete the two sentences beginning with the phrase “to the contrary, his medical records are devoid of any complaints about elbow pain” and ending with the phrase “surgery is not a cure.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
785 F.3d 1174, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8173, 2015 WL 2237242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blankenship-v-birch-ca7-2015.