Jackson v. Medic 1 Ambulance, 517 Fed. Appx. 311; 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4786 (6th Cir. March 6, 2013)
This action was brought by a decedent’s estate to obtain damages as a result of the death of an inmate in the Berrien County Jail from internal injuries sustained while evading arrest by police officers. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that the injuries sustained by decedent had progressed while he was held at the Jail and that both the county jail and the ambulance agency dispatched to provide advanced life support had failed to respond timely and appropriately to the need for emergency medical services care and transport of the patient. Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant governmental ambulance agency had violated decedent’s due process rights by failing to provide timely medical care violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while acting under color of state law. Plaintiff also pled state law claims for medical malpractice against the ambulance company and the two EMTs attending to the patient.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan granted summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against both the ambulance agency and the EMTs, finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish deliberate indifference on the defendants’ part. Therefore, the Court ruled that plaintiff could not meet the elements of a constitutional deprivation case. In addition, the U. S. District Court agreed with Blanco Wilczynski’s argument that Plaintiff’s complaint sounded in Medical Malpractice, requiring plaintiff to please and prove a case under Michigan’s Medical Malpractice Act. Finally, the Court agreed that the immunity applicable under Michigan’s Emergency Medical Services Act was applicable to the facts of this case and Plaintiff had failed to establish gross negligence or willful misconduct, thereby entitling the EMS defendants to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff did appeal the summary judgment to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals as to other defendants. However, Plaintiff did not pursue an appeal against the ambulance provider and EMTs.
