Barberick v. Florence Fire Department EMT, Paul Hilmer
2:16-cv-00199
E.D. Ky.Jun 27, 2017Background
- On Nov. 16, 2015, deputies and EMTs responded to an apartment where Frank Barberick, after a Nov. 4 suicide attempt, was reportedly intoxicated and had taken pills.
- Deputy Dover arrived first, placed Barberick (who admitted taking Elavil and Xanax and had slurred speech) under arrest on an outstanding warrant and handcuffed him before EMTs examined him.
- EMTs Hilmer and Ellison briefly shone a flashlight into Barberick’s eyes, concluded he was merely intoxicated, and provided no further treatment; Officer Steward and others placed Barberick in police cruisers and transported him toward the jail.
- Upon arrival at the jail Barberick was found unresponsive; paramedics could not resuscitate him and the autopsy listed cause of death as combined drug intoxication.
- Plaintiffs (estate of Barberick and his daughter as next friend) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourteenth/Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference medical-care claims for a pretrial detainee) and asserted a state-law medical malpractice/wrongful-death claim against the EMTs.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on qualified immunity/qualified official immunity grounds; the court denied dismissal for four defendants (Ellison, Hilmer, Dover, Steward) as fact-intensive and granted dismissal with prejudice for Lieutenant Allen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barberick was "in custody" for constitutional-medical-duty purposes | Barberick was handcuffed and arrested before EMTs arrived, so he was a pretrial detainee entitled to medical care | Defendants suggested they were rendering emergency assistance, not effecting custody-based detention | Court: Handcuffing and arrest before EMTs arrived means Barberick was in custody/pretrial detainee |
| Applicable constitutional standard for detainee medical care | Estate: deliberate indifference standard applies (Eighth Amendment via Fourteenth) | Defendants: qualified immunity applies; factual record needed to evaluate deliberate indifference and notice | Court: Applies Farmer deliberate indifference test used in Sixth Circuit for pretrial detainees; requires both objective risk and subjective awareness |
| Sufficiency of pleading to overcome qualified immunity for EMTs and officers who treated/transported Barberick | Plaintiffs alleged facts plausibly showing known risk and failure to provide care (brief pupil check, reliance on drunkenness, failure to treat) | Defendants argued qualified immunity at pleading stage | Court: Denied dismissal without prejudice for Ellison, Hilmer, Dover, Steward—fact-intensive; discovery required; immunity better addressed at summary judgment |
| Liability of Lieutenant Allen (nonmedical officer who assisted only in vehicle transfer) | Plaintiffs alleged Allen helped move Barberick between cruisers and was part of response | Allen argued he reasonably relied on EMTs’ medical assessment and had no direct role in treatment | Court: Granted Allen’s motion; qualified immunity applies because he reasonably relied on medical professionals and did not observe or supervise treatment |
| Validity of § 1983 loss-of-consortium claim by Barberick’s daughter | Daughter asserted loss-of-consortium under § 1983 | Defendants argued § 1983 claims are personal to victim/estate and family cannot recover separate § 1983 damages | Court: Dismissed loss-of-consortium claims under § 1983 (daughter may pursue state-law wrongful death claims) |
| State-law medical-malpractice claim against EMTs and qualified official immunity | Plaintiffs alleged EMT malpractice in assessing/treating Barberick | EMTs argued qualified official immunity under Kentucky law (discretionary act performed in good faith) | Court: Denied dismissal without prejudice—whether EMTs performed ministerial vs. discretionary act is fact-intensive and requires discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework permitting either-prong analysis)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard requires knowledge of and disregard of substantial risk)
- Peete v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 486 F.3d 217 (custody and duty-to-render-aid exceptions; custody analysis)
- Spears v. Ruth, 589 F.3d 249 (Sixth Circuit applies deliberate indifference standard to pretrial detainee medical claims)
- Gray v. City of Detroit, 399 F.3d 612 (Sixth Circuit precedent applying deliberate-indifference framework to pretrial detainee suicide claims)
- Perez v. Oakland County, 466 F.3d 416 (example of § 1983 claim surviving on medical-care allegations)