Broderick Fourte v. Faulkner County, Arkansas
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5451
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Fourte, a pre-trial detainee, was admitted to Faulkner County jail without a medical screen.
- October–November 2009: Fourte’s blood pressure frequently elevated; logs documented readings and monitoring by nurse Lumpkin and review by Dr. Stewart.
- October 30: blood pressure spiked to 180/121; Lumpkin gave a pulse-lowering pill but no long-term treatment.
- November 5: Dr. Stewart examined Fourte and prescribed Hydrochlorothiazide, to start November 7, but the drug arrived November 18.
- September 2010: Fourte diagnosed as legally blind, with evidence linking blindness to lack of BP medication during incarceration.
- District court denied summary judgment on immunity; appeals court reverses on some claims and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of intake medical screening violated Fourte's rights | Fourte's admitted illness required screening; failure shows deliberate indifference. | No clearly established right to intake screening; screening not mandatory. | Qualified immunity after no clearly established screening violation. |
| Whether delaying BP treatment after multiple readings constitutes indifference by Dr. Stewart/Lumpkin | Two or more high readings require prompt medication per expert opinions. | Medical judgment allowed; monitoring and later prescription were reasonable. | No deliberate indifference; immunity for Stewart and Lumpkin on treatment delay. |
| Whether County's BP logging and inaction entailed deliberate indifference | County policy enabled ignoring obvious BP crisis via logs and inaction. | County relied on medical professionals; no obvious condition to a layperson. | County immune; no clearly established obvious medical condition. |
| Whether delayed delivery of second prescribed medication shows deliberate indifference | Second prescription delay worsened Fourte's condition and demonstrated disregard. | Delay was negligent at most; not enough for deliberate indifference. | Immunity for Stewart/Lumpkin; no deliberate indifference shown; county not addressed here. |
| Whether the County's appeal on delay in delivery is within jurisdiction | County's system intertwined with medical care; merits review. | Prescription-delivery system not inextricably intertwined; lack jurisdiction to appeal. | Jurisdiction lacking; dismiss/limit scope accordingly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 2000) (deliberate indifference requires more than medical negligence)
- Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234 (8th Cir. 1997) (malpractice not equal to deliberate indifference)
- Pool v. Sebastian Cnty., Ark., 418 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2005) (conflicting expert opinions do not establish constitutional violation)
- White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2008) (inextricably intertwined claims; county's role intertwined with medical staff)
- Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2011) (lacked medical/dental expertise; relied on nurse's opinion)
- Noll v. Petrovsky, 828 F.2d 461 (8th Cir. 1987) (difference of medical judgment does not equal deliberate indifference)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (clearly established rights and qualified immunity framework)