92 F.4th 56
1st Cir.2024Background
- Lidia Lech, incarcerated at the Western Massachusetts Regional Women's Correctional Center (WCC), experienced a stillbirth while approximately 34 weeks pregnant.
- Lech alleged that medical providers and correctional staff at WCC ignored her reports of serious pregnancy symptoms and denied her repeated requests to go to a hospital.
- Lech’s medical records classified her pregnancy as high-risk, and she was scheduled for a C-section due to prior pregnancy complications.
- After her stillbirth, Lech sued WCC staff and affiliated parties for deliberate indifference (constitutional and state law), negligence, medical malpractice, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- The district court granted summary judgment to one defendant (Cruz) on certain claims but allowed most claims to proceed to trial. The jury returned a defense verdict on all remaining claims.
- On appeal, Lech challenged summary judgment for Cruz and two key evidentiary rulings that excluded corroborating testimony and allowed extrinsic evidence of her alleged untruthfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Recorded Calls Under Rule 608(b) | Defense’s use of extrinsic evidence (recorded calls) to prove untruthfulness violated Rule 608(b) | Recordings were not "extrinsic" since admitted and used during testimony; also admissible for impeachment | District court abused discretion; recordings were inadmissible extrinsic evidence under Rule 608(b) |
| Exclusion of Corroborating Testimony (Zygmont) | Exclusion of Zygmont’s testimony about prior consistent statements was error under Rule 801(d)(1)(B) | No express charge of recent fabrication; testimony would merely bolster credibility | District court abused discretion; exclusion was error, as defense charged recent fabrication |
| Summary Judgment for Cruz (Deliberate Indifference) | Reasonable jury could find Cruz was deliberately indifferent in delaying Lech’s care | Cruz responded reasonably (within 20 minutes), lacked knowledge of high-risk pregnancy | Affirmed summary judgment; conduct did not rise to deliberate indifference |
| Summary Judgment for Cruz (IIED) | Cruz’s conduct was extreme and outrageous | Actions were not sufficiently extreme or outrageous under MA law | Affirmed summary judgment; conduct insufficient for IIED |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment with deliberate indifference to medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
- United States v. Winchenbach, 197 F.3d 548 (Rule 608(b) bars extrinsic evidence to show untruthful character)
- United States v. Balsam, 203 F.3d 72 (Extrinsic evidence includes recordings, barred by Rule 608(b) for propensity impeachment)
- Burnette v. Taylor, 533 F.3d 1325 (Deliberate indifference requires individual defendant’s subjective awareness of risk)
- Polay v. McMahon, 10 N.E.3d 1122 (MA standard for IIED is very high, requires extreme and outrageous conduct)