Dutton v. St. Louis County

Background

Pete E. Dutton asserted three remaining claims against Nurse Elizabeth Martinson. Count 1 alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs under the Fourteenth Amendment. Counts 3 and 4 alleged medical malpractice and negligence based on an alleged failure to transport him promptly to a hospital or other medical facility. Dutton alleged that the delay caused severe pain and postoperative complications after surgery for a perforated gastric ulcer.

The court had previously dismissed the claims against the other defendants, including Count 2, based on the parties’ stipulation. The magistrate judge recommended granting Nurse Martinson’s motion for partial summary judgment on Count 1 and dismissing Counts 3 and 4 with prejudice. Dutton objected to the recommendation concerning Count 1 but did not object to the recommendation concerning Counts 3 and 4.

Counts 3 and 4

The court reviewed the unobjected-to portion of the recommendation for clear error. Under Minnesota law, a person alleging medical malpractice or negligence by a healthcare provider ordinarily must provide an affidavit disclosing expert support. The requirement does not apply when the alleged negligent conduct falls within the general knowledge and experience of laypeople. The court agreed with the recommendation that Dutton’s allegations did not fall within that exception. Because Dutton had not submitted the required affidavit, the court held that Counts 3 and 4 were subject to mandatory dismissal and dismissed those counts with prejudice.

Count 1

The court reviewed Dutton’s objection to summary judgment de novo, meaning it independently reviewed the challenged issues. To establish deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs, Dutton had to show that Nurse Martinson knew of an objectively serious medical need and deliberately disregarded it. The court noted that negligence or a disagreement with treatment decisions, without more, is not enough to establish a constitutional violation.

Even assuming, without deciding, that Dutton had proved an objectively serious medical need, the court concluded that the record contained no evidence that Nurse Martinson knew of the need and acted with deliberate indifference. Viewed in the light most favorable to Dutton, the evidence showed that her treatment was consistent with her duty of care and with St. Louis County Jail procedures. The court therefore concluded that Dutton had not raised a genuine dispute of material fact about Nurse Martinson’s knowledge or deliberate indifference.

Disposition

The court overruled Dutton’s objections, adopted the July 13, 2018 Report and Recommendation, dismissed Counts 3 and 4 with prejudice, and granted Nurse Martinson’s motion for partial summary judgment on Count 1. It directed that judgment be entered accordingly.