The Court (Easterbrook/St. Eve/Jackson-Akiwumi, with St. Eve writing and Jackson concurring) affirmed SJ against a prisoner with appendicitis who alleged that had Defendants not delayed treatment, his surgical treatment would have been less invasive. Judge St. Eve’s opinion repeatedly notes that a showing of deliberate indifference is “a high bar” that “requires a showing of something approaching a total unconcern for the prisoner’s welfare in the face of serious risks.” Slip Op. at 6 (citing Judge Sykes’s opinion in Rasho, which cites Rosario). Judge Jackson in her concurrence also notes that deliberate indifference presents an “exceptionally high” bar. Id. at 13 (Jackson-Akiwumi, J., concurring). The opinion is worth reading for folks with 8th Amendment claims because it goes through the relevant precedents on what constitutes deliberate indifference, and explains how this case does not meet the standard. It also lays out what evidence is necessary to gather as part of your deliberate indifference claim (including helpful hints about what concessions to get at depositions). Jackson concurs to highlight that delay in treating emergency medical conditions can constitute deliberate indifference even when the delay is relatively short, and to say that nursing staff can be deliberately indifferent even when a physician is ordering the treatment.