there- was no “evidence to support the contention that due to his disability, plaintiff has been unable to participate in programs or otherwise enjoy benefits offered to others incarcerated .... ” In that case, the prisoner, whose leg was amputated, alleged that he had been provided inadequate wheelchairs by the prison. See id. at 1165-66. That court reasoned that the prisoner’s claim was no more than a complaint that his medical care was inadequate because he was provided poor quality wheelchairs. See id. at 1168. The court preserved a distinction between claims that the medical treatment received for a disability was inadequate from claims that a prisoner has beeh denied access to services or programs because he is disabled. See also Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moore can be distinguished from the case at
recognizing that even when a prisoner files suit under section 1983 alleging medical malpractice against prison medical officials medical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner holding that the ada does not create a remedy for medical malpractice holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal holding the provisions of a comprehensive medical malpractice act unconstitutional holding that plaintiffs claim that medical providers did not comply with baker act was not subject to medical malpractice statutes ajlthough a medical diagnosis is necessary in order to involuntarily commit a patient the process of complying with the statute does not require medical skill or judgment