Gray v. University of Colorado Hospital Authority
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3898
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Decedent Charles Gray was admitted to the University of Colorado Hospital's Epilepsy Monitoring Unit to wean off anti-seizure medication and evaluate surgery.
- Defendants allegedly promised continuous monitoring but the EMU protocol allowed staff to leave patients unattended.
- Decedent had seizures; staff continued to withhold medication to collect data, and a technician left to troubleshoot another patient’s electrodes.
- Decedent suffered a generalized seizure, stopped breathing, and died despite resuscitation efforts; hospital officials later admitted misrepresentations about monitoring.
- Plaintiffs asserted three federal §1983 claims: failure to provide care (deliberate indifference), supervisory liability for training/supervision, and a state-created danger theory.
- The district court dismissed all claims; plaintiffs appealed, focusing on the danger-creation claim while conceding the other two claims were meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the danger-creation theory supports a §1983 claim | Gray contends Defendants created or enhanced danger via policy and misrepresentations. | Danger creation requires affirmative state action creating a specific danger to a plaintiff, not generalized policies. | Danger-creation claim cannot support a due process violation here. |
| Whether decedent was in the State's custody to invoke custodial-safety due process | Plaintiffs argue a custodial relationship existed, triggering protection. | No custodial relationship; patient voluntarily admitted and retained ability to seek other care. | No custodial status; DeShaney-based custody aspect not established. |
| Whether misrepresentations or policy can constitute affirmative conduct for danger creation | False assurances and long-standing policy placed decedent at risk. | Policy and misrepresentation do not constitute the required affirmative act under danger creation. | Misrepresentations and policy do not satisfy affirmative-conduct requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (failure to protect from private violence generally not a due process violation)
- Graham v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-89, 22 F.3d 991 (10th Cir. 1994) (state-created danger requires affirmative act placing plaintiff in danger)
- Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995) (danger-creation theory as narrow exception requiring affirmative conduct)
- Armijo ex rel. Chavez v. Wagon Mound Pub. Sch., 159 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 1998) (six-factor test for danger creation and custodial considerations)
- Ruiz v. McDonnell, 299 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2002) (licensing/daycare licensure not affirmative conduct creating danger)
- Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) (warning about dangers of state-influenced daycare without direct private violence link)
- Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2006) (danger creation requires state action creating (not merely enabling) private danger)
- Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 173 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 1999) (affirmative acts in danger creation must be targeted to a plaintiff, not the public at large)