the hands of fellow inmates and describing his injuries, but omitting “facts suggesting that the prison medical staff had' treated him inappropriately.” 349 F.3d at 426. The prisoner later brought suit on a medical malpractice theory. The Seventh Circuit held that, although it was a “close[] question,” the prisoner failed to provide sufficient notice, because he “did not include facts in his [notice] from which a legally sophisticated reader might have discerned that he had received inadequate medical treatment.” 349 F.3d at 427 (distinguishing this standard from the Fifth Circuit’s more liberal standard in Frantz v. United States, 29 F.3d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1994)). See Bethel v. U.S., ex rel. Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr. of Denver, Colorado, 495 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1124 (D.Colo. 2007) ■ (<HOLDING>). Other courts have been more generous. In
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 insurer vicariously liable for defense counsels negligent defense of a medical malpractice claim 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 plaintiffs treatmentbased claim which focused on medical malpractice was insufficient notice of subsequent negligent supervision argument holding that notice of judgment was insufficient