CINCINNATI (CN) — A Michigan city and several first responders are liable for brain injuries that led to a woman's death for their failure to provide medical treatment when her family found a pulse after she had already been declared dead, the woman's estate argued Thursday at the Sixth Circuit.
Timesha Beauchamp was found unresponsive in her bedroom by her mother, Erika Lattimore, on the morning of Aug. 23, 2020, and paramedics arrived at the Southfield home some 20 minutes later.
The first responders administered CPR for a short time but declared Beauchamp dead shortly after 8 a.m., at which point family members claimed she still had a pulse.
Paramedics went back into the house after protestations from the family members, but told Lattimore and others the pulse and chest movements exhibited by Beauchamp were the result of medication, not signs of life.
Three hours later, Beauchamp was transported to a funeral home in a body bag, where an embalmer opened the bag to find her with her eyes open, gasping for air.
Beauchamp was rushed to the hospital where she was placed on a ventilator in the ICU, but she eventually died from an anoxic brain injury on Oct. 18.
Howard Linden filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Beauchamp's estate later in 2020 and argued the city of Southfield and the employees involved in the incident were liable for Beauchamp's injury and eventual death.
The estate sought damages for due process and constitutional violations under the "state-created danger" doctrine, an exception to the general rule that an individual has no constitutional right to competent medical assistance or rescue services.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, accepted a magistrate judge's findings that none of the defendants' actions exposed Beauchamp to "private acts of violence," declined to apply the state-created danger doctrine and dismissed the case in July 2022 on the grounds of qualified immunity.
Edmunds cited a 2010 Sixth Circuit decision, Willis v. Charter Township of Emmett, which involved a car crash victim erroneously being declared dead, in her ruling.
"[T]he court noted that the decedent's injuries were caused by the car accident that occurred prior to the responders' arrival," she said. "Similarly, here, Timesha was experiencing a medical emergency prior the first responders' arrival.
"Even though she was left untreated and prematurely prepared for funeral processing after the first responders declared her deceased, to hold that these circumstances amount to private acts of violence would turn the general rule -- that state actors have no constitutional duty to render competent medical services or rescue services -- on its head."
In its brief to the Cincinnati-based appeals court, Beauchamp's estate argued she was denied medical treatment because her family members were prevented from helping her after first responders declared she had passed away.
"Here, the first responders affirmatively dissuaded the family from acting to obtain or request medical assistance," it said. "By dissuading not only the family members, but also the Southfield police, this increased the chances that Timesha would be processed by the funeral home."
The city of Southfield disagreed in its brief and emphasized none of the family members were prevented from administering treatment to Beauchamp, and that the first responders' declaration of death could not be used as an affirmative act to support the estate's claims.
Attorney Robert Kamenec of Fieger Law in Southfield argued Thursday at the Sixth Circuit on behalf of Beauchamp's estate and was questioned by members of the three-judge panel about the mens rea, or intent, required to prove his client's claims.
U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Murphy, a Donald Trump appointee, pointed out the Sixth Circuit's case law allows for the application of qualified immunity except in cases where state actors physically prevent private parties from rendering medical treatment.
"[The EMTs] just provided statements that led family members to believe aid would be futile," he told Kamenec.
"You've got egregious conduct," the attorney responded. "There are allegations here that they ... got permission to discontinue aid [even though] they had information there were electrical impulses, that there was a heartbeat."
U.S. Circuit Judge Joan Larsen, another Trump appointee, echoed her colleague's sentiments.
"Don't we have to be very specific for a 'clearly established' [constitutional right]?" She asked. "There was no show of authority, it was just misleading information."
Kamenec admitted no one physically stopped family members from helping Beauchamp, but emphasized the EMTs' status as city employees gave them the requisite authority to influence the family's actions.
Attorney Kali Henderson of Seward Henderson PLLC in Royal Oak, Michigan, argued on behalf of Southfield and its employees and focused on the mens rea angle brought up by the judges.
Henderson told the panel a standard higher than deliberate indifference should be applied to the EMTs in this case, much like that used to judge the actions of police officers forced to make split-second decisions in dangerous situations.
The city's attorney emphasized her clients violated no clearly established constitutional rights and commended the lower court's decision to dismiss the case.
"These are individuals being called to a medical emergency," she said. "This court has never put an EMT on notice that their conduct could have constitutional implications in this scenario."
"This is not the rare case of an obvious violation," Henderson concluded.
During Kamenec's rebuttal, Murphy continued his line of questioning about the intent of the EMTs.
"You certainly alleged deliberate indifference," the judge said, "but is it the same as alleging intent to cause death?"
"No, it's not," the attorney admitted, "but they had signs saying she was alive and willfully ignored them."
U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Gibbons, a George W. Bush appointee, rounded out the panel and participated remotely.
No timetable has been set for the court's decision.
Follow @@kkoeninger44
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
