Pierce v. Itasca County

Background

Debra Faye Pierce, trustee for the heirs and next of kin of Danica G. Winslow, sued Itasca County, county corrections personnel, Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., and medical personnel. The motion addressed in this order was brought by Itasca County and sixteen individually named county defendants, referred to collectively as the Itasca County Defendants.

Winslow was held at the Itasca County Jail from March 22 through March 26, 2019. During that period, she had severe back pain, repeatedly went to the emergency room, reported difficulty moving, urinated on herself, and repeatedly requested additional emergency treatment. On March 26, jail personnel observed worsening symptoms, including labored breathing and abnormal vital signs. She was then taken to the emergency room, diagnosed with septic shock, and transferred to a higher-acuity hospital. The opinion states that she died the next morning and that an autopsy attributed her death to sepsis caused by bacterial endocarditis.

Pierce’s amended complaint asserted four claims against the Itasca County Defendants at issue here: a federal civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against individual defendants for deliberately indifferent medical care, a § 1983 claim against Itasca County for failure to train, a state-law wrongful-death claim, and a survival-action claim for damages belonging to Winslow’s estate.

Legal standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Pierce.

For the individual § 1983 claim, the court explained that Pierce had to show both an objectively serious medical need and that a defendant actually knew of the need but deliberately disregarded it. Deliberate indifference requires a mental state similar to criminal recklessness; negligence or gross negligence alone is not enough.

Count I: Individual § 1983 claim

In her opposition to summary judgment, Pierce limited this claim to Lucas Thompson, Chad Latvala, David Frechette, Marnie Olson, and Erin Nelson. The court held that a reasonable jury could find that each of these five defendants knew Winslow faced a substantial risk of harm. The court cited evidence that the defendants knew Winslow had recently been to the emergency room, remained on the floor for long periods, could not get up, urinated on herself, refused food, or showed other signs of worsening distress.

The court also held that a reasonable jury could find that the five defendants responded inappropriately and unreasonably relied on medical personnel. Winslow repeatedly requested another emergency-room visit, but staff provided water, ice packs, medication, and adult diapers instead. The record did not show that the five defendants checked Winslow’s vital signs or contacted emergency medical providers as directed by the emergency-room discharge instructions. The court also considered evidence concerning the way Winslow was moved for court and the delay between the first report of labored breathing and the ambulance call.

The court therefore denied summary judgment on Count I as against Thompson, Frechette, Latvala, Nelson, and Olson. Because Pierce did not contest the motion as to the other eleven individual county defendants, the court granted summary judgment on Count I as against Shawn Racine, David Hill, Sammy Imbleau, Chris Kebart, John Linder, Amy Slettom, C. Ploetz, D. Roberts, D. Ross, E.R., and S.R.

Count II: § 1983 claim against Itasca County

Pierce alleged that Itasca County was liable under § 1983 for failure to train. The court stated that a county may be liable for a constitutional violation only when the violation results from an official policy, an unofficial custom, or a deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise.

The defendants argued that the record did not establish municipal liability and that Pierce had not opposed summary judgment on this claim. The court agreed that Pierce’s failure to oppose this basis for summary judgment waived the claim. It granted summary judgment on Count II as against Itasca County.

Counts III and VI: Wrongful death and survival action

The defendants argued that the remaining individual defendants were protected by official immunity under Minnesota law. The court explained that official immunity can protect public officials from personal liability for discretionary conduct, but does not protect malicious or bad-faith conduct. It also explained that conduct amounting to deliberate indifference cannot be objectively or subjectively reasonable for purposes of official immunity.

Because the court found genuine disputes concerning whether Thompson, Frechette, Latvala, Nelson, and Olson were deliberately indifferent, it held that summary judgment based on official immunity was not appropriate on the wrongful-death and survival claims. The court denied summary judgment on Counts III and VI as against those five defendants. It also denied summary judgment on Counts III and VI as against Itasca County because the defendants’ argument depended on the individual defendants’ immunity, and the court did not grant that immunity.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the Itasca County Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment on Counts I, III, and VI as against Shawn Racine, David Hill, Sammy Imbleau, Chris Kebart, John Linder, Amy Slettom, C. Ploetz, D. Roberts, D. Ross, E.R., and S.R. It granted summary judgment on Count II as against Itasca County. It denied summary judgment on Count I as against Lucas Thompson, David Frechette, Chad Latvala, Erin Nelson, and Marnie Olson. It denied summary judgment on Counts III and VI as against Itasca County, Thompson, Frechette, Latvala, Nelson, and Olson.