Melissa Burklow v. Dearborn County and Dearborn County Sheriff (mem. dec.)
15A05-1611-PL-2519
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Melissa Burklow has narcolepsy with cataplexy and experienced episodes during interactions with Dearborn County officers in 2011. Police reports documented difficulty communicating with her and referenced third-party reports of mental illness and prescription-medication misuse.
- Burklow visited the Dearborn County Courthouse numerous times during related criminal and custody proceedings and requested wheelchairs at times; the record shows no medical prescription for or regular use of a wheelchair.
- Burklow requested police reports and ADA-coordinator contact information from the County; requests for the police reports were denied as non-public, and she later obtained ADA contact info after it appeared on the County website.
- A court-ordered psychological evaluation for custody used police records; Dr. Hopes’s report quoted officers’ notations (e.g., that Burklow was a “known abuser of prescription medication” and labeled a “mental person”).
- Burklow sued the County under Title II of the ADA (failure to accommodate and denial of access to information) and sued the Sheriff for defamation based on statements in police reports. The trial court granted summary judgment for the County and Sheriff; Burklow appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County violated ADA by denying wheelchair accommodation | Burklow argued she needed a wheelchair to prevent injury during cataplexy; subjective fear justified accommodation | County argued wheelchair request not a reasonable accommodation because Burklow was not prescribed a wheelchair and did not use one elsewhere | Court: No ADA violation; subjective fear + no prescription/use fails to show entitlement to wheelchair accommodation |
| Whether County denied equal access to information under ADA by refusing police reports / ADA coordinator info | Burklow argued denial of police reports and failure to provide ADA coordinator contact discriminated against her | County: Police reports are not public records; denial not motivated by disability; ADA coordinator info later posted and no evidence denial was disability-based | Court: Summary judgment for County; no ADA claim shown as matter of law (no disability-based denial) |
| Whether Sheriff is liable for defamation based on police-report statements used in custody evaluation | Burklow argued police reports contained false statements that harmed custody prospects | Sheriff: Qualified privilege protects officers’ internal, duty-related reports; defamation claim also untimely | Court: Qualified privilege applies; statements made in good faith in course of duties; publication limited to evaluator for judicial purpose — claim fails as matter of law |
| Whether publication/malice/damages elements of defamation established | Burklow asserted publication to Dr. Hopes and harm to custody case; implied malice from false statements | Sheriff asserted no malice and limited, privileged disclosure to evaluator for court proceeding | Court: Malice not shown; publication limited and privileged; claim cannot succeed as matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 2007) (elements of defamation and qualified privilege doctrine)
- Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1992) (definition and scope of qualified privilege)
- Holcomb v. Walter's Dimmick Petroleum, Inc., 858 N.E.2d 103 (Ind. 2006) (qualified privilege rebuts inference of malice)
- Sistrunk v. Khan, 931 F. Supp. 2d 849 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (preference to use wheelchair does not necessarily create an ADA accommodation right)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)