Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claim under 42 USC § 1983; Qualified immunity; Whether plaintiff established that “defendants violated clearly established law at the time of the incident”; Farmer v Brennan; Whether the pretrial detainee’s condition was so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the need for medical attention by visual inspection; Lumbard v Lillywhite (Unpub 6th Cir); Blackmore v. Kalamazoo Cnty

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity for individual Livingston County defendants in this § 1983 deliberate indifference case, holding that plaintiff did not establish that the decedent (Griswold) had manifested sufficient signs that would have made his need for medical attention obvious to a lay person. Law enforcement took Griswold into custody after a domestic disturbance. They transported him to the hospital because he admitted to taking several pills. After he was medically cleared by doctors, he was then taken to a jail cell. He died several hours later from toxic levels of Trazodone, an antidepressant. His estate sued the County defendants for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. The district court granted some of them summary judgment but denied it to others, ruling they were not entitled qualified immunity. On appeal, the court first explained the development of the standards in deliberate indifference cases involving pretrial detainees as opposed to convicted prisoners. It found that this particular case was unaffected because it could be resolved at the second step of the qualified immunity test, which required plaintiff to show that “defendants violated clearly established law at the time of the incident.” The court focused on the “seriousness” of Griswold’s medical needs, and the fact that he had been cleared for incarceration by examining doctors. Given this, to satisfy the objective prong, plaintiff had to “show that it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the seriousness of [Griswold’s] condition was ‘so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.’” The court noted the inconsistencies in case law as to what is considered “obvious,” but it applied the approach used by the parties and the district court, “‘requir[ing] that the medical need be easily detectable by a layman from visual inspection.’” Griswold vomited, exhibited lethargy, and needed “slight assistance” while walking but he “did not manifest other indicia that would have alerted jail officials that he had a serious need for medical attention.”