U.S.C. §§ 157(a)/ (b)(2)(I) and 1334. The Plaintiff brings his Complaint to Determine Dischargeability pursuant to the exception to discharge set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Under this section, a debt will be excepted from the scope of a bankruptcy discharge if it arises as the result of a “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” As applied to this language, there exist two key requirements: “willful” and “malicious” conduct, both types of which, by the statute’s utilization of the conjunctive term “and,” must be in existence before there may be a finding of nondischargeability. Gonzalez v. Moffitt, 254 B.R. 389, 395-96 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio.2000), citing Markowitz v. Campbell (In re Markowitz), 190 F.3d 455, 463 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). It is also follows from the statute’s
holding that if both willful and malicious are not met the debt is dischargeable holding that when a state court judgment was found not to be dischargeable under 11 usc  523a6 the associated attorneys fees were also not dischargeable holding that a debt arising from a medical malpractice judgment which was attributable to a doctors negligent or reckless conduct did not fall within the willful and malicious injury exception to discharge holding  525 applies only where debt dischargeable holding that  525 applies only where the debt in question is dischargeable