Action under 42 USC § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; A pretrial detainee’s burden of proof; Kingsley v Hendrickson; Brawner v Scott Cnty; Trozzi v Lake Cnty; Whether each defendant acted “deliberately” & “recklessly ‘in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known’”; Municipal liability; Qualified immunity

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish a jury question as to whether several defendants-jail employees and a doctor “recklessly disregarded” a pretrial detainee’s (Helphenstine) serious medical needs. He became ill while in the jail and died without seeing a medical professional. Plaintiff’s experts opined that he died from either withdrawal or from severe dehydration caused by it. The district court granted all defendants summary judgment on plaintiff’s § 1983 claims. On appeal, the court first considered what is needed to establish the subjective prong of a “deliberate indifference” claim for a pretrial detainee. Brawner interpreted Kingsley as holding that a pretrial detainee is required to “‘prove more than negligence but less than subjective intent—something akin to reckless disregard.’” The court concluded Brawner, which was decided before Trozzi, controlled. Defendant-Riley was the deputy jailer who took Helphenstine to the detox cell. The court held that because he knew Helphenstine “was ‘dope sick’” and had vomited, and admitted that a doctor should be called but did not do so himself or ask another defendant to do so, “a reasonable jury could find that Riley acted with deliberate indifference.” Defendant-McGinnis, another deputy jailer, “observed Helphenstine in a near-lifeless state, knowing that [he] had not received even basic medical observation or assistance. A jury could reasonably conclude that she recklessly failed to act reasonably by not seeking medical assistance for” him. Likewise, as to two other defendants, deputy jailers Ruark and Bloomfield, the court found that “a reasonable jury could conclude that they acted with deliberate indifference.” It further held that defendant-Lykins, defendant-Lewis County’s elected Jailer, could be found liable in his individual capacity where defendant-Dr. von Luhrte asserted he told him to take Helphenstine to the hospital and Lykins did not do so. As for von Luhrte, a “reasonable jury could conclude that he did not direct the jail staff to transport Helphenstine to the hospital, and thus find that this inaction in the face of Helphenstine’s serious medical need was deliberately indifferent.” As to municipal liability, the court determined “a reasonable jury could conclude that the County’s training and supervision was inadequate, that the inadequacy was caused by Lewis County’s indifference, and that the inadequacy caused Helphenstine’s death.” It affirmed summary judgment for two other defendants and for Lykins in his supervisory capacity. It reversed as to the other defendants and Lykins in his individual capacity, and remanded.