Madden v. Hamilton County Department of Education, 1:13-cv-00377

Background

Five-year-old C.T., a cerebral-palsy patient in kindergarten, wore pullups and required regular toileting assistance at school; her mother Brandy Madden completed a health form but did not disclose details about congenital herpes.
School staff had been told in a transition meeting that C.T. had congenital herpes; Dr. Shafi’s returned fax advised “rash over lower extremities send child home.”
After a teacher was (mistakenly) diagnosed with ocular herpes, school nurses, following internal consultation, instructed daily visual checks of C.T.’s exposed skin during routine pullup changes (nurse did not testify to routinely removing all clothing but may have lifted shirt or eye patch and observed labial area).
C.T. was sent home after nurse observed a blister; plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a Fourth Amendment unreasonable-search claim and a Fourteenth Amendment privacy claim (the latter was dismissed on summary judgment).
At trial, the court excluded printed Tennessee Guidelines as exhibits (permitted testimony about them), delivered jury instructions focused on lack of official policy/failure to train and consent/reasonableness, and the jury returned a verdict for the school; plaintiff moved for a new trial claiming faulty jury instructions, erroneous exclusion of the 2007 Guidelines, and coercion of the jury.
The court denied the new-trial motion, finding no prejudicial instructional error, no harmful exclusion of the Guidelines (contents were testified to), and no coercion in sending the jury back after a poll revealed two dissenting jurors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instructions omitted final-policymaking-official theory	Madden: omission impaired her Monell theory; jury should have been instructed on liability if a final policymaker authorized the search	Hamilton County: Madden never developed proof or requested that theory at trial and agreed to delete it during charge conference	Court: omission was not prejudicial; plaintiff disclaimed that theory at trial and did not object to omission
Instructions mis-stated failure-to-train elements (used inaction elements)	Madden: court gave elements for a custom/inaction claim, not the City-of-Canton failure-to-train standard	Hamilton County: instructions were correct and plaintiff’s proof pointed toward inaction theory	Court: no reversible error; plaintiff failed to request correct elements, presented no proof of single-incident deliberate indifference, and charge adequately covered applicable law
Exclusion of 2007 Tennessee Guidelines from exhibits	Madden: guidelines required parental authorization/doctor’s orders for medical procedures and their exclusion prejudiced her inadequate-training and unreasonableness claims	Hamilton County: parties elicited testimony about the Guidelines; excerpts read; exclusion was proper because they function like regulations	Court: exclusion not reversible; jury heard testimony about the Guidelines and the Guidelines distinguish procedures from routine toileting/body checks
Jury coercion after polling revealed two dissenters	Madden: sending jury back late Friday coerced a verdict given time pressure and trial length	Hamilton County: court acted within discretion under Rule 48(c) to send jury back when poll revealed lack of unanimity	Court: no coercion; deliberations were brief (<6 hours), not protracted or exhausted, no evidence of deadlock, and subsequent unanimous poll confirmed verdict

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipalities liable only for official policy or custom)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train liability requires deliberate indifference; single-incident liability is narrow)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (pattern of violations generally required to show deliberate indifference)
Bd. of Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (single-incident liability where constitutional violation is a highly predictable consequence)
Ellis ex rel. Pendergrass v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 455 F.3d 690 (elements and proof approaches for failure-to-train claims)
Romanski v. Detroit Entm’t, LLC, 428 F.3d 629 (standard for jury instructions adequacy)
Jones v. Hogg, 732 F.2d 53 (factors for evaluating whether court abused discretion in sending jury back after poll revealed dissent)