recruited. Henderson, 755 F.3d at 566 (“Expert medical evidence is required to prove this aspect of his claim. For example, as the district court noted, Henderson’s only evidence that his kidney disease was improperly treated comes from his lab results, ‘which he, as a layman, clearly cannot properly interpret for a jury,’ and Henderson does not even know whether he has been taking renal medications all along for his kidney disease. In addition, as an inmate, Henderson lacked the ability to engage a medical expert. Given Henderson’s capabilities, his incarceration, and the legal and factual complexities of the case, the district court abused its discretion by denying Henderson’s first two requests for appointment of counsel.”); Dewitt v. Corizon, Inc., 760 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, even more recent decisions suggest
holding that statements in medical records given for the primary purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial holding that court abused its discretion in failing to recruit counsel where the case presents complicated medical matters involves varying recommended courses of treatment by numerous physicians and required discovery into what constitutes reasonable carefor medical professionals recognizing that prison officials should defer to medical professionals on medical matters holding that aba therapy when recommended by a physician or psychologist constitutes medical assistance holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion