Billie Thompson v. Lance Cope
900 F.3d 414
7th Cir.2018Background
- In Oct. 2014 Indianapolis, Dusty Heishman — naked, combative, shackled — was encountered by police; paramedic Lance Cope arrived and, after assessing airway/breathing and suspecting amphetamine-induced excited delirium, injected Versed to sedate him for transport.
- Cope monitored Heishman visually (no vitals monitoring); after placement in the ambulance Heishman was found pulseless and unresponsive, revived briefly, but died days later from anoxic brain injury.
- The estate sued under § 1983 (excessive force, deliberate indifference, failure to protect/intervene) and brought multiple state-law claims (wrongful death, negligence, battery, emotional distress) against Cope and the hospital; defendants removed to federal court.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim (treating Cope as acting in a law-enforcement capacity) and mostly denied dismissal of state-law claims as falling under Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act (IMMA).
- The Seventh Circuit reversed: (1) Cope was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that a paramedic sedating a patient-arrestee in a medical emergency violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the estate’s state-law claims fall within the IMMA and must be presented to a medical review panel (claims dismissed without prejudice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cope violated Fourth Amendment by sedating Heishman (excessive force) | Sedation was an unreasonable seizure/force in effectuating the arrest | Cope acted as a medical provider treating an excited-delirium emergency, not using force to effect arrest | Court assumed facts for appeal but found the right was not "clearly established"; qualified immunity granted to Cope |
| Whether the legal right was "clearly established" in 2014 that a paramedic sedating an arrestee in a medical emergency violates Fourth Amendment | Broad Fourth Amendment excessive-force principles put Cope on notice | No controlling precedent holding medical treatment in field during emergency is a Fourth Amendment seizure; professional medical judgment context differs | No clearly established law; immunity applies |
| Whether the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (IMMA) applies to the estate’s state-law claims | Claims are torts/assaults distinct from malpractice; IMMA inapplicable | Cope is a health-care provider, acts constituted health care and malpractice; IMMA procedures and caps apply | IMMA applies; claims must be submitted to a medical review panel; state claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Proper federal procedure for IMMA defense raised as jurisdictional | Plaintiff argued dismissal improper or procedural error | Defense characterized failure to exhaust IMMA panel as jurisdictional under state law; federal court treats as failure to state claim / summary judgment issue | Federal court may convert mislabeled Rule 12(b)(1) motion; here parties had fair opportunity to present evidence and dismissal under IMMA is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2017) (limits on appellate review of qualified-immunity denials and treating facts in plaintiff’s favor)
- Locke v. Haessig, 788 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2015) (jurisdictional constraints on appeals from qualified-immunity denials)
- Stinson v. Gauger, 868 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (limits on appellate jurisdiction when defendants contest facts in qualified-immunity appeals)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized; avoid broad formulations)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (existing precedent must place constitutional question beyond debate for rights to be clearly established)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (officials may have fair warning of unconstitutional conduct even in novel factual settings)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (recognition of "obvious case" exceptions to the need for closely analogous precedent)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force standard for seizures under Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (use-of-force principles in seizure contexts)
- Hines v. Elkhart General Hospital, 603 F.2d 646 (7th Cir. 1979) (federal courts must apply substantive IMMA requirements, including medical review panel prerequisite)