74 F. Supp. 3d 909
N.D. Ill.2014Background
- Await detained at Grundy County Jail; alleged deliberate indifference to seizure treatment by officers and medical staff; dispute over Dilantin/Topamax prescriptions and stock levels; contested role of CHC/HPL and their policies; alleged failure to train staff and to maintain grievance/quality programs; video preservation and spoliation concerns; multiple Illinois state-law counts alongside federal §1983 claims.
- Plaintiff’s claim focuses on deliberate indifference to seizures and failure to provide medications, against Officers Obrochta, Matteson, Van Cleave, Superintendent McComas, Sheriff Marketti, and CHC/HPL medical staff; Monell theories against County Defendants for policies/customs; spoliation allegations regarding video and grievance forms.
- Defendants argue adequate medical decisions were made by clinicians; training/policy issues contested; disputes about stock policies and whether there was a final policymaker; spoliation claims depend on privilege statutes and duty to preserve existing evidence.
- Court denied in part and granted in part summary judgment: rejected some Monell arguments, allowed failure-to-train and some deliberate-indifference theories to proceed; denied others; spoliation claims addressed with mixed outcomes.
- R. 309, R. 312, R. 339
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference by officers | Await suffered seizures and staff ignored/failed to provide medication | No adequate evidence of knowledge or causation by specific officers | Question of fact exists; summary judgment denied on officer liability |
| Monell liability for County/CHC/HPL | Policies/customs caused death; final policymaker, widespread practice, failure to train | Insufficient showings of policy or widespread practice; training disputed | Issues of policymaker status and widespread practice survive; Monell liability not dismissed |
| Liability of Dr. Cullinan and Nurse Clauson | Knew of Topamax and failed to treat; deliberate indifference | Medical judgment deference; qualified immunity argued | Sufficient evidence to deny immunity; issues of medical causation for trial |
| Spoliation of evidence (video/grievances) | Video selectively preserved; grievances destroyed or not preserved | No duty to preserve; no policy; lacks notice | Duty to preserve shown; spoliation issues go to jury on video and grievance forms |
| Failure to train | Lack of training contributed to medical neglect | Not enough to show conscious disregard; training materials exist | Material facts exist to sustain a jury verdict on failure-to-train claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516 (7th Cir.2008) (deliberate indifference standard for prisoners)
- Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir.2011) (deliberate indifference analysis for pre-trial detainees)
- Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir.2010) (seriousness of medical needs not life-threatening to qualify)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir.2011) (deliberate indifference elements for §1983)
- King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir.2012) (monell, delegation of final policymaking authority to private provider)
- Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636 (7th Cir.2014) (policymaker determination requires delegated authority)
- Phelan v. Cook County, 463 F.3d 773 (7th Cir.2006) (evidence of pervasive practice to establish policy)
- Teesdale v. City of Chicago, 690 F.3d 829 (7th Cir.2012) (custom or practice by policymakers)
- Woodward v. Correctional Med. Servs. of Ill., Inc., 368 F.3d 917 (7th Cir.2004) (corporate policy liability for jail conditions)