Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25326
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Weinberg, a pretrial detainee at Wakulla County Jail, claimed officers denied him hearing aid batteries for about twenty months.
- The jail had a policy of not providing hearing aid batteries; inmates could supply batteries themselves or have family/friends send them.
- Weinberg had a prior audiologist diagnosis showing bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, with strong recommendations for binaural amplification.
- Weinberg repeatedly requested batteries; Hodges and Newsome denied these requests both orally and in writing.
- Weinberg alleged the denial impaired his ability to hear in court, communicate with counsel, participate in church, and engage in daily activities.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Hodges and Newsome on several claims, but allowed a serious-medical-need question to go to trial on the deliberate-indifference claim, ultimately granting qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does substantial hearing loss remediable by a hearing aid constitute a serious medical need? | Weinberg's loss is a serious medical need because it impairs communication and safety. | There was no clearly established rule that hearing loss remediable by a hearing aid is a serious medical need. | Yes, can be a serious medical need, but not clearly established law at the time. |
| Did Hodges and Newsome act with deliberate indifference to Weinberg's serious medical need? | Defendants knew of Weinberg's hearing loss and deliberately refused batteries. | No clearly established right; no precedent to show a constitutional violation here. | Sufficient evidence to go to a jury, but qualified immunity applies due to lack of clearly established law. |
| Are Weinberg's ADA and First Amendment retaliation claims properly adjudicated? | Claims could be construed together to support ADA retaliation. | Claims were properly limited to individual capacity under Title II and lack merit. | District court's dismissal affirmed; no viable ADA individual-liability or retaliation claim. |
| Was the regulation relied on by Weinberg sufficient to put Hodges and Newsome on notice of illegality for qualified immunity purposes? | Florida Admin. Code suggests a requirement to provide hearing devices. | Regulation applied to state prisons, not county jail; not fair notice. | Not clearly established; regulation did not put officers on fair notice; qualified immunity applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (qualified immunity requires clearly established law)
- Coffin v. Brandau, 642 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2011) (two-pronged qualified-immunity framework; not strictly sequential)
- Newman v. Alabama, 503 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1974) (unavailability of eyeglasses/prostheses can indicate serious medical need)
- Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (dentures can create serious risk of harm; not all medical needs are equal)
- Youmans v. Gagnon, 626 F.3d 557 (11th Cir. 2010) (elements of serious medical need; objective and subjective components)
- Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference requires more than negligence; fact-specific)