Kirk v. Burke
712 F. App'x 729
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 26, 2010, James Kirk was ejected from a vehicle that overturned after a high-speed (≈90 mph) chase; he was handcuffed at the scene and later taken to a hospital and treated for relatively minor injuries (including a right second metacarpal fracture).
- Defendant Sgt. Jeffrey Burke and other officers called for an ambulance immediately, restrained an initially combative Kirk, and—according to dashcam, ambulance report, and hospital records—did not move him before EMS arrived.
- Kirk contends that an officer knelt on the back of his head after he regained consciousness, that he was carried to and waited at the patrol car, and that he was transported in a police car rather than an ambulance; he alleges resulting pain, headaches, and vertebral damage.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Burke based on qualified immunity; Kirk appealed. The court of appeals reviews summary judgment de novo but applies the two-part qualified-immunity test.
- The appeal concerns only an indifference-to-medical-needs claim under the Fourteenth Amendment (no excessive-force claim was preserved in district court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burke violated Kirk’s Fourteenth Amendment right by denying/ delaying medical care after the crash | Burke kneeled on Kirk’s head, moved him, and delayed/denied appropriate care causing pain and vertebral injury | Officers promptly called EMS, restrained a combative Kirk, did not provide first aid only because he resisted, and did not move him before ambulance arrival | No constitutional violation; record supports officers’ version and medical records show only minor injuries |
| Whether any alleged violation was clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes | Kirk argues harm and officer conduct were obvious enough to put an officer on notice | Burke argues no constitutional violation occurred and thus qualified immunity applies | Because there was no established constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies |
| Whether Kirk produced evidence that delay caused substantial harm (objective prong) | Kirk asserts his post-incident symptoms (pain, headaches, vertebral damage) arose from officers’ conduct | Burke notes medical records show minor injuries, timely treatment, and no evidence tying worsening harm to on-scene conduct or delay | Kirk failed to present medical evidence that any delay or conduct caused substantial harm; objective prong not met |
| Credibility/resolution of conflicting factual accounts at summary judgment | Kirk asks that disputes be resolved in his favor as nonmovant | Burke relies on corroborating dashcam, ambulance, and hospital records showing his account | Court finds plaintiff’s contrary assertions insufficient to create a triable issue given corroborating evidence; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc. v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238 (10th Cir. 1990) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Martinez v. Beggs, 563 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2009) (two-part qualified-immunity framework for Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment medical-needs claims)
- Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2000) (delay in medical care constitutes a constitutional violation only if delay resulted in substantial harm)
- United States v. Abdenbi, 361 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised in district court may not be raised first on appeal)