
    Luz Aida CUEVAS, Individually on her own behalf and as a parent and natural guardian of and on behalf of, Delimar Vera, a minor; Pedro Vera, Individually on his own behalf and as parent and natural guardian of, and on behalf of, Delimar Vera, a minor v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; Harold B. Hairston; John J. Grugan; Vincent W. Heeney; Robert J. McBrearty; Lucien Cerulli; Joseph E. Rissling; Haresh Mirchandani, M.D.; Carl Spurill; David Quain; Pat Kauffman, M.D.; Greg McDonald, D.O.; Carolyn H. Revercomb, M.D.; Richard Neal. Luz Aida Cuevas, Individually on her own behalf and as parent and natural guardian of, and on behalf of, Delimar Vera, a minor, Appellant. Luz Aida Cuevas, Individually on her own behalf and as a parent and natural guardian of and on behalf of, Delimar Vera, a minor; Pedro Vera, Individually on his own behalf and as parent and natural guardian of, and on behalf of, Delimar Vera, a minor v. City of Philadelphia; Harold B. Hairston; John J. Grugan; Vincent W. Heeney; Robert J. McBrearty; Lucien Cerulli; Joseph E. Rissling; Haresh Mirchandani, M.D.; Carl Spurill; David Quain; Pat Kauffman, M.D.; Greg McDonald, D.O.; Carolyn H. Revercomb, M.D.; Richard Neal. Pedro Vera, individually and on his own behalf as parent of Delimar Vera, Appellant.
    Nos. 06-3765, 06-3793.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Argued: Oct. 3, 2007.
    Filed: Oct. 17, 2007.
    Thomas M. Marrone, Esq. (Argued), Alan M. Feldman, Esq., Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernier Tanner & Weinstock, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Luz Aida Cuevas.
    Michael J. Engle, Esq. (Argued), Law Office of Joel P. Trigiani, I. Michael Luber, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant Pedro Vera.
    Jane Lovitch Istvan, Esq. (Argued), City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee City of Philadelphia, et al.
    John P. Shea, Esq., Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee Patricia Kauffman, M.D.
    Before: McKEE, BARRY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

BARRY, Circuit Judge.

Each of the contentions of the parties has been carefully considered by us, and we have heard oral argument. We have also had the benefit of Judge Pratter’s thoughtful and well reasoned forty-six page opinion. We are convinced that her analysis is not one on which we can improve, and to write separately would be to add nothing of substance to that excellent opinion; indeed, to write separately would be doing little more than paraphrasing what has already been written. Accordingly, and substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Pratter’s opinion, we will affirm.  