PASADENA (LN) — The 9th Circuit reversed a jury verdict for jail nurse Yvette Barbari and reinstated plaintiff Shawn Porio’s lawsuit against Orange County, ruling Barbari lacked qualified immunity and the county’s training failures created a genuine issue of material fact.
Porio was arrested in 2022 after erratic driving caused by a stroke, not intoxication. Barbari, a nurse employed by Orange County Nurses, conducted the jail intake screening but failed to identify the medical emergency. Porio spent over 20 hours in custody before being sent to a hospital, during which he suffered at least one more stroke and permanent brain damage.
The district court had granted summary judgment to the County, reasoning that Porio’s First Amended Complaint did not put the County on notice that he intended to pursue liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York based on policies related to jail or nursing staff.
The 9th Circuit disagreed, finding Porio’s complaint satisfied pleading requirements. The complaint alleged the County and its correctional healthcare authority "fail[ed] to use lawful and appropriate policies, practices, and procedures for arrestees and detainees who exhibit signs of mental[] impairment that might be the result of a pathology such as a stroke rather than inebriation."
During discovery, Porio noted the County failed to provide training records and concluded it "provided no such training." He also alleged the County was on actual and constructive notice of training deficiencies.
The appeals court found this was enough to put the County on notice of a Monell claim. Porio presented evidence that the County had notice of policy and training deficiencies due to prior in-custody deaths and watchdog reports but took no remedial action.
Expert testimony indicated it is a "common, recurrent scenario" for patients with serious health problems, including strokes, to arrive at intake having been misidentified as intoxicated. Experts opined that patients thought to be too intoxicated to answer questions "require[] immediate [provider] assessment to address the substantial risk they are experiencing a medical emergency."
The 9th Circuit also reversed the jury verdict for Barbari, ruling she was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court found it was clearly established that officers must seek to provide an injured detainee with objectively reasonable medical care of medical necessity creating a substantial and obvious risk of serious harm.
Construing the facts most favorable to Porio, a reasonable jury could find Barbari’s failure to refer Porio to a provider was objectively unreasonable and that she acted with reckless disregard for his well-being.
The court further reversed the verdict due to the district court’s enforcement of a strict three-hour-per-side time limit for examining witnesses. The 9th Circuit noted it generally "look[s] upon rigid hour limits for trials with disfavor."
In this case, which involved difficult medical diagnosis, causation, and damages questions requiring expert testimony, three hours was not enough for Porio to present his case. The time limit caused him to rush the presentation of evidence, impeding his ability to meet his burden of proof.
The 9th Circuit reversed and remanded the case.
The panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Friedland and Miller, and U.S. District Judge Eric N. Vitaliano of the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.