Ortiz v. City of Chicago
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17759
7th Cir.2011Background
- Molina, a disabled, obese civil rights activist, died in CPD custody shortly after arrest for drug charges.
- CPD policy barred arrestees from keeping medications in lockup unless taken to a hospital, denying Molina her meds.
- Molina had diabetes, thyroid, hypertension, and other serious conditions requiring ongoing medication and monitoring.
- Screening records and observations by multiple officers indicated Molina was seriously ill and in need of medical care.
- Over the 24+ hours in lockup, officers delayed or declined taking Molina to a hospital, and guards did not ensure access to treatment, contributing to her death.
- Ortiz, administrator of Molina’s estate, sued City of Chicago and several officers under §1983 for denial of medical care and delay in the Gerstein hearing; district court granted some summary judgments and excluded the plaintiff’s medical expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial or delay of medical care violated the Fourth Amendment | Ortiz—Molina’s medical needs were known and untreated. | Defendants—detention period was short; no constitutional violation. | Summary judgment reversed for medical-care claims; jury issues remain. |
| Whether defendants’ failure to act caused Molina’s harm; causation standard | Failure to treat caused harm; expert testimony not strictly required. | Causation unclear; expert proof needed. | Causation question for jury; expert exclusion reversed as error. |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Defendants knew of serious medical needs and ignored them. | Standards unclear at time; conduct not clearly established. | Qualified immunity not warranted on medical-care claim. |
| Whether the Gerstein delay claim survives | Prolonged detention without probable-cause hearing violated Gerstein. | Delay within permissible administrative processing; 48-hour rule not breached. | District court’s analysis affirmed in part; Ziemba and Lemon-Richmond owed no liability; remanded for other claims. |
| Evidentiary rulings on Dr. Adelman and Dr. Carter | Exclusion of Dr. Adelman undermined theory of causation; admissible evidence. | Daubert concerns; testimony unreliable. | Court abused discretion; remand to reassess admissibility and weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (48-hour probative benchmark for probable cause hearings)
- Williams v. Rodriguez, 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006) (Fourth Amendment governs pre-detention medical decisions; sliding-scale reasonableness)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (Detention triggers state duty to protect safety and well-being)
- Luck v. Rovenstine, 168 F.3d 323 (7th Cir. 1999) (Personal liability requires causation under §1983)
- Sides v. City of Champaign, 496 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2007) (Fourth Amendment analysis for detainee medical care clarified)
- Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010) (Abuse of discretion in Rule 702/Daubert; expert admissibility framework)
- Cobige v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2011) (Concerning proximate causation and expert testimony in detention-medical cases)
- Langston v. Peters, 100 F.3d 1235 (7th Cir. 1996) (Verifying medical evidence requirement in delay-of-care claims)
- Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2000) (Expert testimony standards for causation in negligence-like settings)
- Egebergh v. Nicholson, 272 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2001) (Causation in medical-care delay cases recognized)