Gary Schauer suffered a neck injury during an altercation outside a tavern in Ponca City, Oklahoma. When emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) employed by Ponca City arrived on the scene, Schauer told them he could not move his left arm or his legs. The EMTs loaded Schauer into an ambulance without stabilizing his spine. During this process, Schauer’s head “flopped” forward. He died a few days later as a direct result of his spinal cord injuries.
Leasa Wright, special administrator of Schauer’s estate, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the EMTs and Ponca City. Wright claimed the EMTs violated Schauer’s right to substantive due process when they, knowing Schauer had a possible spinal cord injury, moved him without a cervical collar and backboard. She asserted Ponca City failed to adequately train its EMTs in the handling of patients with suspected spinal injuries, specifically including intoxicated individuals.
Upon the defendants’ motions, the district court concluded Wright’s Amended Complaint failed to state a claim for relief. It ruled that the facts set out in the Amended Complaint neither shocked the judicial conscience nor implicated a fundamental right and, therefore, did not amount to a violation of Schauer’s right to substantive due process. Absent any underlying constitutional violation on the part of its employees, the district court decided Wright’s claim against Ponca City also failed. Wright appealed.
Qualified Immunity
In its September 7, 2023 Order and Judgment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (“Federal Appellate Court”) stated that the qualified immunity test is a two-part inquiry, and to avoid application of the doctrine, Wright must demonstrate that the EMTs violated Schauer’s right to substantive due process and that Schauer’s constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the EMTs’ conduct.
The Federal Appellate Court stated: “it is not clear in this circuit whether (1) it is possible to state a substantive due process claim against individual state medical actors outside of the custodial setting and, (2) if it is possible, whether such a claim is only available in the additional context of state-created danger. Thus, we cannot conclude that every
reasonable EMT in this circuit would be aware that providing even willfully defective emergency medical services would amount to a substantive due process violation … Even if this court were to assume some kind of claim could be brought against the providers of emergency medical care outside the context of a custodial setting or danger creation, it is not remotely clear what state of mind is required to state such a claim.”
The Federal Appellate Court further stated: “The problem for Wright is that this court has never hinted at the possibility EMTs could be liable for the defective provision of emergency services absent an intent to harm … Absent clearly established Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent indicating the EMTs could be liable in the absence of an intent to harm, the law is not clearly established.”
The Federal Appellate Court held: “In sum, the law in this area is entirely unclear. It is not clearly established the Substantive Due Process Clause can support a claim of defective provision of medical services outside of the context of a custodial setting or situations involving state created danger. Even if such a claim is viable, it is not settled whether such a claim will only shock the judicial conscience when the state medical provider intends to harm a patient. Absent clearly established law, the EMTs are entitled to qualified immunity and the district court did not err in dismissing the claim against the EMTs.”
With regard to the claims against Ponca City, the Federal Appellate Court stated: “The Amended Complaint fails to state a plausible claim that Ponca City acted with deliberate indifference to constitutional violations on the part of its EMTs. Most notably, the Amended Complaint seeks to impose municipal liability based on a single incident without identifying any relevant policymaker … There is no hint in the Amended Complaint that the alleged policy caused harm to any individual, let alone any individual similarly situated to Schauer. Given all this, the Amended Complaint’s talismanic assertion that Ponca City acted with deliberate indifference and that the harm to Schauer was foreseeable is not enough to state a plausible claim. Instead, as Jenkins and Butler make clear, the Amended Complaint must identify a particular decision or a municipal policymaker to whom this alleged failure to train can be attributed. In the absence of such allegations, the Amended Complaint can only be seen as attempting to impose respondeat superior liability on Ponca City.”
Source Wright v. City of Ponca City, No. 22-6137.
If you or a loved one were harmed as a result of medical malpractice in Oklahoma or in another U.S. state, you should promptly consult with an Oklahoma medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical negligence claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice lawsuit, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or telephone us on our toll-free line in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.