How have defendants in a medical malpractice case argued for qualified immunity?

Defendants lastly argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because the undisputed facts show they did not violate the Constitution and/or because it would not have been clear to a reasonable official under the circumstances that the conduct alleged was unlawful. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001). As discussed above, the undersigned concludes that defendants have not demonstrated the absence of disputed material facts regarding the Eighth Amendment violation alleged in this case. Taking the evidence submitted in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it would have been clear to a reasonable official that offering medical treatment while knowing that the treatment had been shown to be ineffective and, at the same time, denying effective treatment would violate the Constitution. Therefore, defendants have not established that they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.