Action under 42 USC § 1983 asserting violation of an inmate’s Eighth & Fourteenth Amendment rights; Qualified immunity; Failure-to-protect claim; Farmer v Brennan; Failure to ensure an inmate received their essential medications; “Substantial risk of serious harm”; Richmond v Huq

The court affirmed the district court’s ruling denying defendants-jail nurses (Snow and Watson) qualified immunity where prior case law established that neglecting to provide an inmate with essential medication could constitute a constitutional violation. Plaintiff-estate’s decedent, Wiertella, died of hypertensive cardiovascular disease while serving a 27-day sentence in an Ohio jail. Plaintiff alleged violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under § 1983. Plaintiff’s expert testified that “‘the discontinuance and failure to provide medications contributed to [Wiertella’s] blood pressure spiking and his risk of sudden death.’ He concluded in his report that ‘[b]ut for the failure to provide those medications and a CPAP machine, in my opinion, Mr. Wiertella would not have died how and when he did.’” The district court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court found that it properly concluded based on Watson’s testimony that she “was aware of a substantial risk to Wiertella if he did not timely receive his essential medications. Yet Watson did nothing to ensure that Wiertella received his blood-pressure medications—or any medication other than for his diabetes—in a timely manner. This was unreasonable.” As to Snow, the court determined that based on the “evidence, a jury could find that Snow was aware of the substantial risk that Wiertella faced, and that she unreasonably failed to ensure that [he] timely received all his essential medications.” It further held that plaintiff met the requirement that it “‘identify a case with a similar fact pattern that would have given “fair and clear warning to officers” about what the law requires.’” In Richmond, an inmate was on psychiatric medications that were not provided. In that case, waiting for her “to have her psychiatric conditions addressed at an upcoming psychiatrist appointment scheduled 14 days later was not deemed sufficient to address her serious medical needs.” In addition, in Richmond the court “held that prior caselaw had clearly established that ‘neglecting to provide a prisoner with needed medication’ could ‘constitute a constitutional violation.’” As a result, that case presented “a ‘similar fact pattern’ that gave Snow and Watson a ‘fair and clear warning’ that failing to ensure that Wiertella timely received his essential medications was a violation of his constitutional rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Thus, the court found that the district court did not err in ruling that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. Remanded.