AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Medical Care
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability and Medical Care for Arrestees, 2017 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A female motorist arrested on suspicion of DWI claimed that the arresting officer ignored her obvious need for medical attention. She allegedly alerted the officer that she was “very sick and bleeding” heavily and asked to be taken to a hospital. The officer refused and proceeded to administer a field sobriety test. The motorist felt that she was “about to pass out” and, again, asked to be taken to a hospital. The officer allegedly again refused, arrested her, handcuffed her, and drove her to the police station, where she claims she was subjected to additional testing, then taken to jail, where she was held for 12 hours. Her blood sample was negative for alcohol and controlled substances. The plaintiff then "inexplicably" sent the court more than 100 pages of attachments, mostly police reports and medical records, attempting to add the municipalities as defendants. The officer’s report contradicted the motorist’s claims and recounted driving her to a hospital. Reports from another hospital establish that, two days later, she was diagnosed with “[a]cute blood loss anemia secondary to dysfunctional uterine bleeding.” The trial court dismissed her lawsuit, finding her allegations “no longer plausible.” A federal appeals court vacated, ruling that the trial court erroneously concluded that she had pleaded herself out of court by attaching the police report, which contained facts different from those in the complaint. The plaintiff’s submissions fairly allege that the officer knew about her need for medical attention and responded in an objectively unreasonable manner. Otis v. Demarasse, #16-1875, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 8243 (7th Cir.).
When two men broke into a door to his apartment, a male occupant dialed 911. He struggled with the men in his bedroom. Officers saw two men exit the apartment, and one of them had a gun in his hand as he ran towards an officer. The officer shot him while the second suspect fled. The man shot was the occupant, who had disarmed a burglar. The officer never administered aid to the wounded man, later saying that he considered it unsafe to do so with an active crime scene and that the suspect appeared to be dead. The occupant died. The officer was entitled to qualified immunity on claims for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs, as his actions were objectively reasonable based on what he knew at the time. Thomas v. City of Columbus, #16-3375, 854 F.3d 361 (6th Cir.).
Three officers were sued for ther
involvement in the warrantless arrest of a vehicle passenger for possession of
cocaine and drug paraphernalia, charges which were later dropped. A federal
appeals court held that summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunty was
proper on a false arrest claim, as the officers had probable cause for the
arrest because one officer saw the plaintiff throw a crack pipe out of his car
window. Two of the arresting officers, however, were not entitled to qualified
immunity because they allegedly delayed seeking medical care when the passenger
was shot in the genitals, acting with deliberate indifference and reporting his
injury as a "laceration." The third officer, who arrived later, was
entitled to qualified immunity, however, as there was no indication that he
knew that the other officers caused a delay in medical care. Valderrama v.
Rousseau, #13-15752, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 4116 (11th Cir.).
A man claimed that he
was beaten by police officers and sustained a fractured collarbone, a SLAP-type
labral tear, and facial injuries leaving permanent scarring and requiring two
nose surgeries. He also became legally deaf in one ear and has reduced hearing
in the other. A federal appeals court reversed the dismissal of a deliberate
indifference denial of medical care claim against the doctor at a hospital
emergency room, finding that if the complaint were amended to allege two things
claimed in the plaintiff's opposition to the doctor's motion to dismiss, it
would show a sufficiently culpable state of mind for a constitutional
violation. Those two things were that the officers falsely told the female
doctor that one of the officers he allegedly attacked was a woman, and that he
should therefore be "ignored and left alone." Nielsen v. Rabin,
#12-4313, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 2745 (2nd Cir.).
The family of a female arrestee who died
while held in a cell in a police station without needed medical attention for
over 24 hours was awarded $1 million in damages by a jury. According to the
plaintiffs, the woman's lawyer and several family members repeatedly let
officers know that she was seriously ill, and she herself informed them of this
also. She was obese, diabetic, and had asthma. The jury found that a police
practice of holding detainees in cells in police stations without medical
attention for up to two days was unconstitutional. Ortiz v. the City of
Chicago, #04-C-7423, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2013).
Officers who shot and
killed a man were sued for excessive force and deliberate indifference to a
known serious medical need, the need for treatment of his wounds. The jury
found in favor of the officers after being instructed that the plaintiffs had
to prove that deliberate indifference caused the man's death. A federal appeals
court upheld the trial judge's grant of a new trial on the medical indifference
claim. In such a delay of treatment case, it is not necessary to show that the
delay in providing medical care caused the death when a layperson would find it
obvious that a delay in treatment created a risk of serious harm. The
defendants failed to show that a substantial ground for a difference of opinion
existed on the correctness of the trial decision. Miedzianowski v. City of
Clare, #13-101, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 17375, 2013 Fed App. 243P (6th Cir.).
A bipolar woman who had ceased taking her
medication was arrested for disruptive actions at an airport. She allegedly
received no medical attention while detained, and was released in a high-crime
area of town where she was first raped and then either pushed or fell out of a
high-rise building, causing her to suffer permanent brain damage. While there
is no general right to have police protection against the criminal acts of
third parties, police can be liable for damage if they create or enhance the
danger of such crimes. While the woman had no due process right to be kept in
custody for her protection, it was "clearly established that the police
may not create a danger, without justification, by arresting someone in a safe
place and releasing her in a hazardous one while unable to protect
herself." A number of individual defendants were not entitled to qualified
immunity for their role in the woman's release in a dangerous area or failure
to provide her with medical care while in custody. The court stated that “they
might as well have released her into the lion's den at the Brookfield Zoo,”
since “she is white and well off while the local population is predominantly
black and not affluent, causing her to stand out as a person unfamiliar with
the environment and thus a potential target for crime.” Paine v. Cason,
#10–1487, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 8450 (7th Cir.).
After officers made a controlled purchase of pot
in front of an apartment, officers entered the premises, and arrested a female
occupant who was smoking marijuana. After she told them that she feels ill,
they allegedly denied her requests for a baby aspirin. She subsequently has a
heart attack, but the officers are not liable for denying her medical
attention, since they were not on notice, based on her appearance, of her
serious medical condition, and were not directly made aware that she was
experiencing chest pains. Florek v. Village of Mundelein, #10-3696, 2011 U.S.
App. Lexis 16854 (7th Cir.).
City's emergency medical technicians did not
violate patient's Fourth Amendment rights or his due process rights when they
restrained him during an emergency call and "hogtied" him because he
was resisting their efforts to diagnose and treat him. The patient was then
resisting them because of a diabetic episode, and the court rules that he was
not then "mentally present," and therefore could not possibly have
communicated a refusal of treatment. Davidson v. City of Jacksonville, No. 3:03-CV-343,
359 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Police officer who allegedly failed to order that
arrestee be taken to the hospital when she was exhibiting symptoms of a heart
attack was not entitled to qualified immunity in her estate's wrongful death
lawsuit. If these actions occurred in this manner, they violated her clearly
established constitutional right to receive necessary medical attention. Carter
v. City of Detroit, No. 04-1005 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 9717 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR
Jul]
Officer acted reasonably in not interfering with
forcible blood and urine tests imposed on DUI arrestee by hospital doctor after
he concluded that she was not competent to refuse consent and needed medical
treatment to prevent the possibility of a drug overdose. Estate of Allen v.
City of Rockford, No. 02-1873, 349 F.3d 1015 (7th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Apr]
In lawsuit claiming that police officers failed
to provide adequate medical care to arrestee, resulting in his death, jury
engaged in improper speculation in awarding $3 million to decedent's children
without evidence to support a finding that the economic value of the loss of
his services, advice, and counsel was worth that amount, and therefore was set
aside by trial judge. Separate award of $2.5 million to decedent's estate for
his pain and suffering was not disturbed. Rosario v. City of Union City Police
Department, 263 F. Supp. 2d 874 (D.N.J. 2003). [N/R]
Evidence was insufficient to support jury's
award in favor of motorist claiming that officer was deliberately indifferent
to his serious medical needs following a vehicle accident, as it did not
support the conclusion that the motorist suffered from a cerebral edema. Trial
court properly set aside jury's award of $50,000 in compensatory damages and
$250,000 in punitive damages to the plaintiff. Best v. Town of Clarkstown, No.
02-7664, 61 Fed. Appx. 760 (2nd Cir. 2003). [N/R]
There was a genuine issue of fact as to whether
an officer's use of pepper spray was reasonably necessary to subdue a man being
arrested for disorderly conduct, but the officer did not engage in deliberate
indifference to the arrestee's serious medical needs by failing to immediately
call an ambulance after the use of the spray, in the absence of any evidence
that the delay caused any harm. The evidence further showed that the arrestee
declined the officer's offer to give him a towel and water to flush out his
eyes. Mantz v. Chain, 239 F. Supp. 2d 486 (D.N.J. 2002). [N/R]
294:92 Pedestrian injured in hit-and-run accident
had no constitutional right to first aid from off-duty officers who came to the
scene Mueller v. County of Westchester, 943 F.Supp. 357 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
284:115 Officer was entitled to qualified
immunity for shooting armed suspect who held out a hand containing a gun in
response to officer's demand that he show his hand; officer reasonably feared
for his life, regardless of exactly what direction displayed weapon was
pointed; officers had no clearly established duty to provide medical aid to shot
suspect prior to arrival of EMTs Wilson v. Meeks, 52 F.3d 1547 (10th Cir.
1995).
City was not liable to man for his quadriplegia
suffered after he intentionally jumped out of a window; jury could reasonably
conclude that any negligence by police officers in transporting him or failing
to obtain medical assistance did not cause his injuries Land v. City of New
York, 575 N.Y.S.2d 690 (A.D. 1991).
Officers not liable for failure to provide first
aid to assault victim; victim was not bleeding and asked to be returned to
motel room Doerner by Price v. City of Asheville, 367 S.E.2d 356 (N.C. App.
1988).
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu