Johnson v. Tinwalla
855 F.3d 747
7th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Terry Johnson, an involuntarily committed resident at Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, alleged he was given the antipsychotic Risperdal without his knowledge or consent.
- Dr. Tinwalla, a Wexford-employed psychiatrist, prescribed Risperdal after Johnson reported irritability and aggressive impulses; Johnson signed then immediately scratched out consent.
- Tinwalla did not follow Illinois or Harper procedures for involuntary antipsychotic administration and did not inform Johnson or nursing staff that Risperdal had been prescribed.
- Nursing staff dispensed unlabeled pills nightly in cups; Johnson received and ingested Risperdal unaware, having previously refused it.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Tinwalla; the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding triable issues on constitutional and state-law claims and potential deliberate indifference and battery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether administration of unmarked Risperdal violated due process liberty interest in refusing antipsychotics | Johnson: being given and ingesting Risperdal without knowledge or consent violated Harper-protected liberty interest | Tinwalla: Johnson’s right to refuse wasn’t denied because medication was not physically forced; at most negligence | Reversed summary judgment — triable issue: jury could find liberty violation and deliberate indifference |
| Whether Tinwalla satisfied Harper/Illinois administrative requirements for forced medication | Johnson: procedures (psychiatrist review/committee; findings of dangerousness) were not followed | Tinwalla: wrote prescription so Johnson could take it voluntarily; no forced administration occurred | Court: statutory/Harper safeguards were ignored; medication was effectively administered without required findings |
| Whether Tinwalla was deliberately indifferent under §1983 | Johnson: failure to notify staff and patient was more than negligent and showed deliberate indifference to refusal right | Tinwalla: at worst negligent failure to inform; no intent or reckless disregard | Court: reasonable jury could infer deliberate indifference from circumstances |
| Whether unconsented administration supports state-law medical battery | Johnson: intentional, unconsented indirect contact (ingestion) satisfies battery | Tinwalla: did not physically touch plaintiff; act was not an intentional offensive contact | Court: indirect administration via unmarked pill can constitute offensive contact; triable battery claim exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (recognizing liberty interest against unwanted antipsychotic administration)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (negligence by state actor does not rise to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)
- Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241 (2d Cir.) (deliberate indifference can support claim for forced-medication)
- Sekerez v. Rush Univ. Med. Ctr., 954 N.E.2d 383 (Ill. 2011) (Illinois recognizes medical battery by indirect offensive contact)
- Hughes v. Scott, 816 F.3d 955 (7th Cir.) (describing Rushville facility and commitment context)