Id. at 834 n. 10. In that case, the evidence as forecast in the summary judgment record would have supported a jury finding that a prison psychiatrist had abruptly discontinued a prisoner’s psychotropic drugs on the basis of a visit of a “few minutes” and without reviewing the prisoner’s medical file or doing a “mental status examination” and that had he reviewed the file, he would have seen that the prisoner was a serious suicide risk. We concluded that on those facts, a jury would have been entitled to find that the private doctor afforded the prisoner grossly inadequate care and “that he realized he was doing so at the time” thus exhibiting deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s needs. Greason, 891 F.2d at 835. See also Waldrop v. Evans, 871 F.2d 1030, 1034-35 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We think this case is not materially
holding where a prisoner was deprived of lithium that summary judgment was precluded by a genuine dispute between experts on the question whether the doctors acts constituted legitimate medical practice or either gross incompetence or the deliberate choice of an easier but less effective course of treatment holding that where record evidence specified the comparative alleged infractions of the relevant individuals but where the accuracy of those allegations was in genuine dispute a court may not grant summary judgment holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question holding that summary judgment on plaintiffs res ipsa loquitur theory was precluded both because there existed genuine issues of material fact as to the cause of the accident and whether or not one of the defendants had exclusive control over the instrumentality of the accident