4 N.W.3d 844
Neb.2024Background
- RaySean Barber, an inmate in Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) custody, was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and refused antipsychotic medication.
- DCS medical staff obtained involuntary medication orders (IMOs), after hearings and administrative processes, to forcibly medicate Barber with monthly Haldol injections for three years.
- Barber filed a lawsuit under Nebraska’s State Tort Claims Act (STCA), alleging DCS staff negligently applied for, ordered, and continued the IMOs, resulting in personal injuries and damages.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity under the STCA’s exemption for claims arising out of battery.
- The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the core claim was a battery, barred by the exemption.
- Barber appealed, contending his claim was for medical malpractice, not battery, and thus should not be barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does STCA exempt battery-based claims from suit? | Claim is medical malpractice/ negligence, not battery | Claim is battery barred by exemption | STCA exemption broadly applies; battery claims barred |
| Is non-consensual medical injection a battery? | Injection w/o consent is malpractice, not battery | Medical treatment without consent = battery | Unconsented medical treatment = battery |
| Does state’s privilege (e.g., court-authorized IMO) negate battery exemption? | State's conduct was justified by process, so no battery applies | Privilege/justification irrelevant; focus is on unconsented contact | Justification is immaterial to exemption |
| Can plaintiff circumvent exemption by recasting claim as negligence? | Complaint alleges negligent diagnosis/process, not the physical act | The gravamen is physical contact (injection) without consent | Essence of claim is battery regardless of legal label |
Key Cases Cited
- Britton v. City of Crawford, 282 Neb. 374 (battery is defined as unconsented contact and falls under Tort Claims Act exemption regardless of justification)
- Yoder v. Cotton, 276 Neb. 954 (distinguishes between medical malpractice and medical battery; treatment without consent is battery)
- Williams v. State, 310 Neb. 588 (setting review standard for motions to dismiss under the STCA)
- Dion v. City of Omaha, 311 Neb. 522 (privilege for battery does not remove claim from statutory exemption)