The Court (Ripple/Hamilton/Scudder, with Ripple writing and Hamilton concurring) affirms SJ against a prisoner with medical care claims against Wexford, the medical director at Menard, and several nurses. The opinion lays out the relevant precedents for the various aspects of the claim, but in my opinion, shows the real danger of the relevant precedents by disposing of the case by construing Plaintiff’s arguments as “mere disagreements” about the choice of care or “negligent” but not indifferent. Hamilton concurs with some sharp words for Wexford and our precedents: “Existing precedents encourage private companies that provide health care in prisons to set up labyrinthine procedures and organizational structures that save money by delaying and denying needed medical care for prisoners while also diffusing responsibility so widely that no individual can be held legally responsible for avoidable suffering.” Slip Op. at 31 (Hamilton, J., concurring). According to Hamilton, this is exactly why we shouldn’t give Wexford and companies like it the benefit of the heightened evidentiary burdens of Monell.