King v. Kramer
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10585
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- King died in La Crosse County jail infirmary; plaintiff alleged deliberate indifference under §1983 against five defendants; HPL contracted to provide medical care and to manage formulary; King was on alprazolam but abruptly tapered off; medical staff failed to monitor withdrawal; King showed seizures and deteriorated; Kramer moved King to padded cell; reasonable monitoring and access to physician were lacking; county policy delegated medical decision-making to HPL; evidence suggested county knew of problematic medication policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Olson and Koby-Gobel entitled to summary judgment on deliberate indifference? | Olson and Koby-Gobel ignored seizures or failed to secure medical care. | Officers deferred to jail health professionals and had no reason to believe mistreatment occurred. | Yes; summary judgment for Olson and Koby-Gobel affirmed. |
| Did Kramer violate King's Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment rights through deliberate indifference? | Kramer ignored seizure indicators and misrepresented events to staff. | Medical judgments allowed; not deliberately indifferent. | Issue of material fact; summary judgment reversed as to Kramer. |
| Was Mondry-Anderson liable for deliberate indifference based on her reliance on Kramer? | Mondry-Anderson knew of withdrawal risks and disregarded them. | Relied on Kramer’s account; no knowledge of serious risk. | Not deliberately indifferent; Mondry-Anderson granted summary judgment in her favor. |
| Can La Crosse County be liable under Monell for policies causing constitutional violations? | County policy delegated medical decision-making to HPL and ignored warnings. | Policy reasonable; no systemic policy causing violation. | Sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on Monell liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (constitutionality of medical care in custody; Eighth Amendment standard)
- Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2010) (protects detainees; requires objective and subjective awareness of serious medical need)
- Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2011) (objective/subjective elements for deliberate indifference)
- Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2001) (defines objective serious medical need; awareness by staff)
- Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010) (nonmedical officers may be liable if aware of mistreatment by doctors)
- Collignon v. Milwaukee Cnty., 163 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 1998) (medical indifference can be shown by disregard of medical readings)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (malpractice vs. constitutional violation; high standard for indifference)
- Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2000) (analogy for gross negligence in medical context)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy/custom causing violation)
- Calhoun v. Ramsey, 408 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2005) (policy causing rights violations; example of formulary-like policy)
- Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (notice/inaction theory for municipal policy)
- Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1985) (delegation of medical decision-making and Monell policy)
- Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012) (private contractors as state actors for purposes of immunity)