Estate of Dustin Barnwell v. Mitchell Grigsby
18-5480
6th Cir.Jan 21, 2020Background
- On Nov. 11, 2011 Dustin Barnwell allegedly overdosed on cyclobenzaprine (Flexeril); his girlfriend Shasta Gilmore called 911 reporting he was unconscious and "combative." Officers Grigsby and Stooksbury and four Roane County paramedics responded.
- Officers and paramedics restrained/pinned Barnwell and placed him in handcuffs at the paramedics’ request so EMTs could treat him; paramedics performed rapid-sequence intubation (RSI) and administered succinylcholine (a paralytic) as part of the protocol.
- Barnwell went into cardiac arrest, was transported to the hospital, and died; autopsy attributed death to Excited Delirium Syndrome from cyclobenzaprine overdose with contributing heart disease.
- Gilmore (on behalf of Barnwell’s estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983/§ 1985, Tennessee Health Care Liability Act (THCLA), and state-law battery. District court dismissed the THCLA claim for statutory noncompliance, granted summary judgment on an unlawful-restraint § 1983 claim, and after trial entered judgment as a matter of law for defendants on the excessive-force claim involving succinylcholine.
- On appeal Gilmore challenged: THCLA dismissal (pre-suit notice and certificate of good faith), summary judgment on unlawful restraint (qualified immunity / capacity), JMOL on excessive-force/battery, and raised Fifth- and Seventh-Amendment arguments; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| THCLA pre-suit notice & HIPAA authorization compliance | Gilmore contends she provided required notice and HIPAA release to defendants | Defendants argued notice and HIPAA release were deficient (missing HIPAA-compliant auth. for individual paramedics, no certified-mail proof, complaint not stating compliance) | Court: Notice and HIPAA authorization did not substantially comply; dismissal of THCLA claim affirmed. |
| THCLA certificate of good-faith (expert) requirement | Gilmore says amended certificate cured defects and exceptions apply (records, common-knowledge) | Defendants: initial certificate lacked required expert-competency statements; dismissal mandatory for noncompliance | Court: Strict compliance required for certificate; original certificate defective; amended filing still failed to strictly comply; common-knowledge/records exceptions inapplicable; dismissal with prejudice affirmed. |
| §1983 unlawful restraint / qualified immunity (medical-response vs law-enforcement capacity) | Gilmore argues officers acted punitively and were not performing a medical function when they restrained Barnwell | Defendants: acted in emergency-medical-response capacity to permit treatment; no punitive/law-enforcement purpose; therefore qualified immunity applies | Court: Objective evidence shows medical-response function; no admissible proof of punitive purpose; defendants entitled to qualified immunity; summary judgment affirmed. |
| §1983 excessive force re: succinylcholine; JMOL; Fifth & Seventh Amendment challenges | Gilmore contends administering paralytic was excessive force; argues exclusion from testifying violated due process and JMOL violated jury right | Defendants: insufficient evidence tying officers to drug administration or showing law-enforcement capacity; district court properly found plaintiff failed to produce legally sufficient evidence and agreed plaintiff was unavailable to testify | Court: Gilmore failed to preserve/brief JMOL argument; district court granted JMOL correctly on absence of sufficient evidence; court did not abuse discretion finding Gilmore "unavailable" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 32; Seventh- and Fifth-Amendment challenges rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peete v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 486 F.3d 217 (6th Cir. 2007) (no § 1983 liability where restraint was for emergency medical aid absent punitive purpose)
- McKenna v. Edgell, 617 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2010) (capacity inquiry—objective role analysis—controls qualified-immunity in medical-response vs law-enforcement contexts)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (courts must view factual record in light most favorable to nonmovant on summary judgment)
- Stevens ex rel. Stevens v. Hickman Cmty. Health Care Servs., Inc., 418 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. 2013) (THCLA pre-suit notice can be satisfied by substantial compliance for content but pre-suit requirement itself remains mandatory)
- Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300 (Tenn. 2012) (THCLA pre-suit notice was mandatory under prior Tennessee precedent)
- Davis ex rel. Davis v. Ibach, 465 S.W.3d 570 (Tenn. 2015) (statute does not require disclosure of absence of prior violations in certificate of good faith)
- Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (2000) (JMOL before submission to jury does not violate Seventh Amendment if no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury verdict)