The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision concerning lawsuits brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the Court has sided with the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), requires removal of the subjective component for pretrial detainees bringing Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims.
The Eighth Amendment protects inmates from cruel and unusual punishments, which includes the right to be free from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs. However, pretrial detainees, who have not yet been charged with a crime, are additionally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment which provides pretrial detainees with the right to receive adequate medical care and to be free from excessive force. In other words, pretrial detainees generally have broader constitutional protections for their right to receive medical treatment.
Despite the difference in constitutional rights, historically, claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment and claims brought by prisoners under the Eight Amendment have been analyzed under the same rubric. That rubric required a pretrial detainee to demonstrate both that the official should have known of a risk to the pretrial detainee and did nothing to abate the risk, the objective component, and that the official actually knew of the risk and failed to mitigate it, the subjective component.
But in Kingsley, the Supreme Court held that a pretrial detainee bringing an excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment requires only a showing of the objective component. Since Kingsley there has been debate among the circuits whether this standard applies to pretrial detainee claims other than excessive force. Now, the Sixth Circuit has answered that question in the affirmative in their decision in Brawner v. Scott Cnty., Tenn., No. 19-5623 (2021).
In Brawner, a pretrial detainee was booked into jail and indicated she was on four medications. These medications aided her seizure disorder. However, due to the jail’s policy prohibiting the distribution of controlled substances, Brawner was denied three of her medications. Consequently, she began experiencing numerous seizures over two weeks. While the jail gave her a substitute medication to address the seizures, Brawner’s seizures continued and worsened. As a result of her prolonged seizure activity, Brawner suffered permanent and debilitating injuries. She subsequently sued the jail and various jail staff under the Fourteenth Amendment. While the lower court initially granted the defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, the Sixth Circuit held there was sufficient evidence that jail staff knew or should known of Brawner’s serious medical needs but failed to take appropriate action.
The Sixth Circuit court clarified that a pretrial detainee’s deliberate indifference claim under the Fourteenth Amendment simply must show that the defendant official acted deliberately, as opposed to accidentally, and was reckless in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that was either known to the official or so obvious that is should be known. In Brawner, the court held that a reasonable jury could conclude the jail’s nurse knew the pretrial detainee needed medication to prevent her seizures but failed to ensure the detainee received her medication or a suitable substitute.
Consequently, the Sixth Circuit’s decision has lowered the burden necessary for pretrial detainees to bring deliberate indifference claims. A plaintiff no longer needs to demonstrate that an officer or other staff actually knew of and disregarded their serious medical needs. Moving forward, it is imperative for corrections facilities and their staff to ensure proper documentation and assessment of pretrial detainee medical needs. This includes assessing whether a pretrial detainee is suffering from prescription medication withdrawal, or whether the substitute medication provided to the pretrial detainee is properly functioning. Further, when any officer, nurse, or other staff becomes aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to a pretrial detainee, such observations need to be properly documented and attended.
The attorneys at Fishel Downey regularly represent government officials on matters arising out of law enforcement actions and other constitutional challenges. If you have a specific question or scenario, and would like assistance, contact one of the attorneys at Fishel Downey Albrecht & Riepenhoff LLP at 614-221-1216.