Flentoil v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Corrections

Background

Eric E. Flentoil, who was representing himself, was a pretrial detainee at the Santa Clara County Jail. He had longstanding knee pain after a failed 2016 multiligament knee reconstruction. He claimed that jail medical staff improperly denied or delayed requested pain medication and mobility devices, and that the jail failed to provide adequate shower accommodations for his disability.

The action included two claims: a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause concerning medical care, and a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act concerning disability accommodations. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of important facts requires a trial. Flentoil did not oppose the motion, but the court considered the verified factual statements in his amended complaint as evidence.

Medical-care claim

The court applied the objective deliberate-indifference standard for a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim. Under that standard, the plaintiff had to show that the defendant intentionally made a decision about his confinement, that the decision created a substantial risk of serious harm, that the defendant failed to take reasonable available steps to reduce that risk, and that the failure caused injury.

The court held that no reasonable jury could find Dr. Chyorny liable. Dr. Chyorny declined to provide Percocet and gabapentin, which the opinion describes as controlled medications with abuse risks, but medical staff provided ibuprofen and acetaminophen, a cane, a lidocaine patch, a soft knee brace, an ace wrap, ice, special shoes, physical therapy, injections, and other care. Dr. Chyorny also approved crutches when he became aware of that request and referred Flentoil for fitting for a hinged knee brace, which was later provided.

The court also found that Dr. Chyorny had medical reasons for declining the requested medications, including Flentoil’s recent positive test for methamphetamine and his false statement that he had been drug-free for a year. The court explained that a disagreement over alternative medical treatments is not enough; Flentoil had to show that Dr. Chyorny’s chosen treatment was medically unacceptable under the circumstances. The court concluded that the evidence did not meet that standard and granted summary judgment to Dr. Chyorny on the medical-care claim.

The court separately ruled that Dr. Chyorny was entitled to qualified immunity on the same claim. Qualified immunity generally protects a government official from damages when the official’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right or the right was not clearly established. Because the court found no constitutional violation, it entered judgment for Dr. Chyorny on that defense.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claim

The court considered Flentoil’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims together. For the damages he sought, he had to show discriminatory intent, which the court described as the public entity knowing that harm to a federally protected right was substantially likely and deliberately failing to act. A plaintiff can satisfy the notice portion by identifying a specific, reasonable, necessary accommodation and notifying the public entity of the need for it.

The court found triable factual issues concerning the showers. Flentoil stated that he was initially housed in a medical unit with accessible showers, then was moved to general population, where the showers lacked features such as guard rails, shower chairs, or slip-resistant flooring. He said he notified an officer on April 20, 2018, and was told that nothing could be done because classification and a doctor had cleared him for general population. He was moved to a unit with an accessible shower around May 21.

Viewing the evidence in Flentoil’s favor, the court held that a reasonable jury could find that his statement alerted the County to his need for an accommodation and that the County deliberately failed to provide an accessible shower for about a month. The court therefore denied the County’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act damages claim. The court dismissed Flentoil’s request for declaratory relief as moot because he later received the requested accommodations; the opinion also stated that any request for an injunction would be moot.

Disposition and mediation

Judge Chen ordered that defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Dr. Chyorny received judgment as a matter of law on the medical-care claim and on qualified immunity. The County did not receive summary judgment on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act damages claim. The court referred the action to Magistrate Judge Illman for mediation or settlement proceedings through the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program, to occur within 120 days of the order. The order states that Flentoil must attend and participate in the mediation or settlement conference.