TATTNALL COUNTY Et Al. v. ARMSTRONG
333 Ga. App. 46
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In January 2012, inmate Jacob Armstrong was jailed in Tattnall County; his treating physician ordered MRIs that the jail defendants did not obtain. A month later Armstrong suffered a stroke attributed to brain abscesses allegedly detectable by the missed MRIs.
- Armstrong sued the Tattnall County Sheriff, Chief Jailer, a deputy, the Sheriff’s Office, and later added Tattnall County, asserting state-law claims under OCGA §§ 42-5-2 and 42-4-4 and Georgia Constitution claims for denial of medical care.
- Federal claims were dismissed by Armstrong, the state-law claims proceeded in state court; the Sheriff’s Office was conceded and dismissed as not a suable entity.
- Defendants moved to dismiss county and official-capacity claims as barred by sovereign immunity; trial court denied dismissal relying on Cantrell v. Thurman.
- Defendants took an immediate appeal; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo whether Georgia’s sovereign immunity bars Armstrong’s state-law damage claims and whether the cited statutes waived immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tattnall County and officials sued in official capacity are immune from state-law tort damages under Georgia sovereign immunity | Armstrong: OCGA § 42-5-2 (and § 42-4-4) imposes duty/cost for inmate medical care and thus waives county sovereign immunity | Defendants: Sovereign immunity persists unless General Assembly expressly waives it; the cited statutes do not contain an express waiver | Held: Sovereign immunity bars state-law damages claims against the County and officials sued in official capacity; statutes do not waive immunity |
| Whether the trial court properly applied Cantrell (that medical-care claims are not discretionary and thus not immune) | Armstrong: Relied on Cantrell to argue immunity inapplicable to medical-care denial claims | Defendants: Cantrell wrongly conflated sovereign and official/qualified immunity analyses | Held: Overruled Cantrell (and Middlebrooks to extent applicable); sovereign-immunity analysis is distinct and Cantrell’s discretionary/ministerial approach is incorrect |
| Whether OCGA § 42-5-2 constitutes an express waiver of county sovereign immunity | Armstrong: § 42-5-2 places duty and cost on the governmental unit and therefore waives immunity | Defendants: The statute imposes duty/cost but contains no express waiver language required by the Constitution | Held: § 42-5-2 does not waive sovereign immunity for county damage claims |
| Whether OCGA § 42-4-4 (sheriff duties) waives immunity for official-capacity suits | Armstrong: § 42-4-4 imposes sheriff’s duty to provide care and thus waives immunity | Defendants: Statute does not expressly waive county or official-capacity immunity | Held: § 42-4-4 does not waive sovereign immunity for official-capacity damage claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantrell v. Thurman, 231 Ga. App. 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (discussed and overruled to the extent it applied discretionary/ministerial analysis to sovereign immunity in medical-care inmate claims)
- Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744 (Ga. 1994) (sovereign immunity extends to counties and official-capacity suits are suits against the state)
- Center for a Sustainable Coast, Inc. v. Ga. Dept. of Natural Resources, 294 Ga. 593 (Ga. 2014) (only General Assembly may waive sovereign immunity under 1991 constitutional amendment)
- Ga. Dept. of Corrections v. Couch, 295 Ga. 469 (Ga. 2014) (sovereign immunity has constitutional status; waiver only by General Assembly)
- Gish v. Thomas, 302 Ga. App. 854 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (OCGA § 42-5-2 imposes duty/cost but does not waive county sovereign immunity)
- Middlebrooks v. Bibb County, 261 Ga. App. 382 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (quoted Cantrell; overruled to the extent it suggests discretionary/ministerial test applies to sovereign immunity)