Gutteridge v. State of Oklahoma
878 F.3d 1233
| 10th Cir. | 2018Background
- D.C., born 2008 with cerebral palsy, was placed in Oklahoma foster care; guardian Donald Gutteridge, Jr. sued after D.C. suffered permanent brain damage while in foster placement.
- D.C. was placed with foster parent Carolyn Funk (during which she had an unexplained shoulder fracture and later facial bruising) and later with Pat LeBarre (where she suffered abusive head trauma consistent with inflicted injury).
- OKDHS investigated earlier allegations regarding Funk, temporarily removed D.C., then returned her to Funk; later removed her again at Funk’s request after additional reports.
- Gutteridge asserted (1) a § 1983 substantive-due-process claim against several OKDHS employees and (2) a state-law tort claim against OKDHS alleging negligent placement, failure to timely remove D.C. from Funk, and failure to obtain timely medical care.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the individual defendants on qualified immunity grounds (finding no conscience-shocking conduct) and to OKDHS under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) placement exemption for placement-related claims.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity and affirmed dismissal to the extent the state claim stems from placement decisions, but reversed and remanded as to (a) alleged failure to obtain timely medical care and (b) alleged failure to timely remove D.C. from Funk, holding those theories fall outside the GTCA placement exemption and are not time-barred as pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual OKDHS employees violated D.C.’s substantive due process right (special-relationship doctrine) | Gutteridge: defendants abdicated professional judgment re: foster safety; abdication is per se conscience-shocking in foster-care context | Defendants: they investigated, did not act with conscience-shocking culpability; at most negligent/reckless | Held: Affirmed for defendants — plaintiff failed to show conduct that shocks the conscience; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether failure-to-exercise-professional-judgment alone satisfies conscience-shocking standard | Gutteridge: abdication of professional judgment should be sufficient | Defendants: conscience-shocking is a separate, additional element | Held: The court requires two-part showing: abdication + conscience-shocking; Gutteridge’s argument rejected |
| Whether GTCA placement exemption bars state tort claims based on placement, failure-to-remove, or failure-to-provide-medical-care | Gutteridge: exemption doesn’t cover post-placement failures to remove or failures to secure medical care | OKDHS: exemption bars claims sounding in placement; any failure-to-remove is just an alternative theory of placement liability | Held: Exemption bars claims to the extent they arise from placement decisions; exemption does NOT apply to (a) alleged failure to obtain timely medical care and (b) failure to timely remove D.C. after post-placement opportunities to intervene; those claims remanded |
| Whether the non-placement state-law claims are time-barred under GTCA notice requirement | OKDHS: claims arise from pre-October 2, 2011 injuries and notice was untimely | Gutteridge: the compensable "loss" is D.C.’s later permanent brain damage occurring after Oct. 2, 2011, so notice was timely | Held: Court accepts plaintiff’s framing that the loss is later brain damage; medical-care and failure-to-remove claims are not necessarily time-barred and survive summary judgment on timeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (Sup. Ct.) (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Sup. Ct.) (qualified immunity framework)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (Sup. Ct.) ("conscience shocking" substantive due process standard)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (Sup. Ct.) (state’s duty and private violence principle)
- Schwartz v. Booker, 702 F.3d 573 (10th Cir.) (special-relationship doctrine in foster-care context requires abdication + conscience-shocking conduct)
- Johnson ex rel. Estate of Cano v. Holmes, 455 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir.) (two-part test for special-relationship claims)
- J.W. v. Utah, 647 F.3d 1006 (10th Cir.) (application of special-relationship doctrine)
- Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir.) (deference to state court statutory interpretation)
- Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 847 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir.) (standards on sealing appellate materials)
- Baxter International, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 297 F.3d 544 (7th Cir.) (confidential materials and sealing)