United States Sixth Circuit

In estate representative's action brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against various governmental officials alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to decedent's serious medical needs, denial of qualified immunity to defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a "sufficiently serious" medical need; 2) there was sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could infer that each defendant-correctional officer had an objective awareness as to the seriousness of decedent's ailment, and that their failure to do anything about her ailments amounted to deliberate indifference; 3) one paramedic was properly denied qualified immunity, but another was not; 4) supervisor defendants were entitled to qualified immunity; 5) the facts as alleged showed that defendant-doctor knew of and consciously disregarded a serious medical risk to decedent; and 6) the law on the issue was clearly established.

Appellate Information

• Decided 07/25/2008
• Published 07/25/2008

Judges

• Before:  RYAN, SILER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Jeffrey R. Thompson, O'Neil, Parker & Williamson, Knoxville, Tennessee, Jon G. Roach, Watson, Roach, Batson, Rowell & Lauderback, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants.  Dan C. Stanley, Stanley & Kurtz, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Jeffrey R. Thompson, O'Neil, Parker & Williamson, Knoxville, Tennessee, Jon G. Roach, Watson, Roach, Batson, Rowell & Lauderback, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellants.   Dan C. Stanley, Stanley & Kurtz, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.