Julie A. Rice, Attorney at Law, & Affiliates

04/30/2019

U.S. Supreme Court to hear Georgia case on gay, le***an workplace bias
News April 22, 2019
By Bill Rankin, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider a metro-Atlanta case as it weighs whether gay, le***an and transgender workers are protected under federal anti-discrimination laws.

In what could be a landmark ruling, the high court will decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends workplace protections to members of the LGBT community. The case of former Clayton County child welfare official Gerald Lynn Bostock is among three the court is set to examine. The other two involve a skydiving instructor from New York and a transgender woman fired by a Michigan funeral home. Oral arguments are expected to take place in the fall. Bostock’s lawyer, Brian Sutherland, said he was grateful the court will weigh in. “This is a very important issue affecting millions of Americans,” he said.

Gerald Bostock claims he was fired from his job as a Clayton County child welfare worker because he is gay
Photo: Photo Courtesy WSB-TV

The three cases could result in the Supreme Court’s most important civil rights decision since 2015 when, by a 5-4 vote, it declared same-s*x marriage constitutional. More than 20 states have laws prohibiting s*xual discrimination based on s*xual orientation, yet Georgia does not have such a law. “These three cases will determine whether those very important civil rights protections apply nationwide as a matter of federal law,” said Robert Schapiro, an Emory University law school professor. This will also be the most significant gay rights dispute to come before the court since Justice Anthony Kennedy retired last year.

Kennedy, a key swing vote, was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a nominee of President Donald Trump. On the court, Kennedy authored several landmark decisions in favor of gay rights. This included overturning a Texas law that criminalized so**my, striking down a Colorado voter initiative that denied civil rights protections to the LGBT community and the legalization of same-s*x marriage.

WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 10: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen during a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House April 10, 2017 in Washington, DC. Kennedy was instrumental in deciding many of the court’s most important gay rights’ cases. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)
Photo: Eric Thayer/Getty Images

“Certainly on any issue relating to the LGBT community, the absence of Justice Kennedy is potentially quite significant,” Schapiro said. “These cases will give insight into how this new configuration of the Supreme Court addresses issues relating to gay and le***an rights.” As it typically does, the Supreme Court waited to hear the issue until there was a split among the federal appeals courts. While at least three appellate courts have granted victories to gay, le***an and transgender plaintiffs, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was an exception. In that case, Bostock contended he was fired by Clayton County as a child welfare services coordinator because he is gay. Bostock, who received good performance reviews, joined a gay softball league in 2013 and promoted it as a place for volunteer opportunities, court records say. But Bostock said he was openly criticized for his participation in the league by people with significant influence over the county’s decision-making. In April 2013, the county conducted an audit on the funds managed by Bostock and fired him two months later for conduct unbecoming a county employee.

In his suit, Bostock contended the audit was used as a pretext against him because he is gay.A federal judge in Atlanta dismissed Bostock’s complaint. She largely relied on a ruling issued by the 11th Circuit in 2017, when it said Title VII did not protect a Georgia Regional Hospital security guard who claimed she was fired because she’s a le***an. In May 2018, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit unanimously dismissed Bostock’s discrimination claims. Two months later, when the full 11th Circuit court declined to revisit that ruling, a number of the court’s more liberal judges issued stinging dissents. Judge Robin Rosenbaum, for example, said the issue is of monumental importance to the LGBT community. “I continue to firmly believe that Title VII prohibits discrimination against gay and le***an individuals because they fail to conform to their employers’ views when it comes to whom they should love,” wrote Rosenbaum, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Judge Robin Rosenbaum of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
Photo: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Citing a 2011 study, Rosenbaum noted there are millions of Americans who identify as gay, le***an or bis*xual, and roughly 25 percent of them experience workplace discrimination because their s*xual preferences do not match their employers’ expectations. In a statement issued Monday, Clayton County said Bostock was terminated based on the audit which disclosed his handling of the funds he was managing violated company policies and procedures. It added that Bostock’s firing “had nothing to do with his s*xual orientation.” As for Bostock’s discrimination claims, the county said in its Supreme Court filing, “the inconvenient reality” for him is that Title VII does not include s*xual orientation as a protected class. It applies only on the basis of “s*x” and other protected classes, such as race, religion and natural origin, the county said. Instead, Bostock is advancing novel legal theories that “are solely intended to entice the court to seize legislative power from Congress and do what Congress declined to do for more than 50 years: amend Title VII by adding s*xual orientation as a protected class.” But Greg Nevins, a Lambda Legal senior counsel who has argued for protections for a number of LGBT clients, strongly disagreed.

“Discrimination against someone for being transgender or being in a same-s*x relationship is a form of discrimination because of s*x, plain and simple. There is no reason for the Supreme Court to carve LGBT people out of a law that by its own terms protects us from discrimination.” One of the other two cases the Supreme Court will consider involves skydiving instructor Donald Zarda, who said he was fired because he is gay. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled in Zarda’s favor.

The third case involves Aimee Stephens a Michigan transgender woman who contends she was fired by a funeral home after she disclosed to her boss she was transitioning from male to female. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled in her favor, saying the funeral home engaged in unlawful s*x discrimination.

For links and other information from the article, please see the following link: https://www.ajc.com/news/local/supreme-court-decide-workplace-bias-cases-against-gays-le***ans/bb7HjtWaZ4lIodzybv08UP/?utm_source=newspaper&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8037937&ecmp=newspaper_email&

The case involves a Clayton County child welfare worker who claims he was fired because he is gay

04/18/2019

At Julie A. Rice, Attorney at Law, & Affiliates, call now for a free legal consultation with Attorney Rice at 770-865-8654, as we represent clients and work with the finest Attorneys in Georgia for clients who have suffered serious, permanent, catastrophic, &/or wrongful death in Medical Malpractice Cases in the Entire State of Georgia.

In this case, Trabue et al. v. Atlanta Women's Specialists, LLC et al., the Court Reverses Trial Court's Denial of New Trial on Apportionment Where Defendants Sought to Apportion Liability to Non-Party After Failing to Give Required Notice and Trial Court Had Wrongly Concluded Notice Was Not Required

| April 17, 2019 at 12:00 AM

Docket
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Date filed: 2019-03-07
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
Attorneys: for plaintiff: Naveen Ramachandrappa, Michael Terry, (Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP), Atlanta, Michael Regas, James Stone, (The Stone Law Group - Trial Lawyers, LLC), Atlanta, William Stone, (William S. Stone, P.C.), Blakely, for appellant.; for defendant: Colin Delaney, Leah Sears, (Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP), Atlanta, Daniel Huff, Taylor Tribble, (Huff, Powell & Bailey, LLC), Atlanta, David Flint, Michael Flint, (Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, LLP), Atlanta, for appellee.

Judge: Presiding Judge Doyle
Case Number: A18A1508

Case Digest Summary

Keith Trabue, individually and as guardian of his wife, Shannon Trabue, and Advocacy Trust of Tennessee, LLC, as her conservator, brought suit against Atlanta Women's Specialists, LLC and Dr. Stanley Angus after Shannon sustained a catastrophic brain injury four days after giving birth. Following a jury trial, Trabue and the others were awarded $46 million. The defendants moved for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred by permitting evidence of the negligence of Simonsen, another AWS physician who was not a party, and by failing to require the jury to apportion fault between Angus and Simonsen where evidence of Simonsen's negligence had been introduced. The trial court rejected the former claim but granted a new trial on the limited issue of the allocation of fault between the defendants and Simonsen. Each party then appealed. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erroneously granted the defendants' motion for new trial where it should have denied the motion in its entirety.
Keith Trabue and others brought suit against AWS and Angus after Shannon Trabue suffered a respiratory event while recovering from giving birth that gave rise to a debilitating brain injury and that could have been avoided with proper monitoring and medication. Angus was responsible for most of Shannon's care, but the near-fatal event occurred while Simonsen, an AWS physician, was in charge. Trabue and the others sought recovery from Angus, as the primary treating physician, and AWS, as the principal of Simonsen and any other AWS employees who may have contributed to the failure. The defendants vigorously contested the introduction of evidence of Simonsen's negligence on the basis that she was not a party, but the trial court allowed such evidence to establish AWS's liability. After the jury returned a $46-million verdict, AWS and Angus successfully argued that a new trial was warranted on the allocation of liability among AWS, Angus, and Simonsen, while the trial court rejected the defendants' request for new trial on the issue of the liability, and each side appealed.

The court first held that the trial court properly concluded that Trabue and the others had raised the issue of Simonsen's negligence through its claims against AWS where the plaintiffs had consistently pleaded that AWS's liability was premised at least in part on the acts of Simonsen as an agent of AWS. The court then reversed the trial court's order granting the new trial, holding that reconsideration of apportionment was unavailable where Angus and AWS sought to apportion liability to Simonsen, a non-party, but failed to give notice of their intention to do so as required by OCGA §51-12-33 (b), which requires notice be given within 120 days of facing claims for which apportionment may be sought. Finally, the court held that the trial court could proceed with resolving the plaintiffs' motions for attorney's fees in light of its conclusion that no new trial was warranted. Thus, the court affirmed the judgments in A18A1552, A18A1553, and A18A1554 and reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded A18A1508 and A18A1555.

To read the full case, please see the following link:

Court Reverses Trial Court's Denial of New Trial on Apportionment Where Defendants Sought to Apportion Liability to Non-Party After Failing to Give Required Notice and Trial Court Had Wrongly Concluded Notice Was Not Required

04/18/2019

At Julie A. Rice, Attorney at Law, & Affiliates, if you or a loved one has had a mesh product used in a medical procedure and has had medical issues as a result, not just transvaginal mesh, then please call me at 770-865-8654, for a free consultation. Please have the type of mesh product known when you call.

Amanda Bronstad 4/17/2019 reports that there is: More Wrangling Over Mesh Fees. The FDA on Tuesday ordered Boston Scientific and Coloplast to stop selling their transvaginal mesh products, but the fight over $550 million in common benefit fees in the litigation is far from over. A handful of vocal plaintiffs’ lawyers objecting to their share of fees responded to accusations from lead attorneys that their applications were “riddled with excessive entries, duplicative billing” and other problems. A quick backgrounder: Much of the dispute centers on verdicts obtained in state courts in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. (The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by the way, agreed last week to take up a jurisdictional dispute over the mesh cases, while an appeals court affirmed a $13.5 million verdict in Philadelphia state court).
Adam Slater (Mazie Slater), Shanin Specter (Kline & Specter) and Ben Anderson (Anderson Law Offices) filed replies on Monday.

04/18/2019

The article herein discusses the day that Medical Ma*****na became law in Georgia. Talk with your doctor about getting your ma*****na medical card. Remember: This is not the legalization of recreational ma*****na.

To read the full article, please see this link:
https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/medical-ma*****na-oil-sales-signed-into-georgia-law/qUIeTcvR49opFbsB5MU36H/?utm_source=newspaper&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7983595&ecmp=newspaper_email&

A bill signed into law Wednesday allows medical ma*****na oil distribution in Georgia, creating a way for registered patients to obtain the drug.

04/17/2019

At Julie A. Rice, Attorney at Law, & Affiliates, call now at 770-865-8654, to speak directly with Attorney Rice about your options if you have had a surgery involving surgical mesh.

This can be a woman or a man in many types of settings involving mesh. The article below from the FDA (Federal Drug Agency) addresses mesh used in transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse, but there are many other uses of mesh that have class actions pending and massive tort cases pending as well.

Again, if you have had any surgery involving mesh, please contact Attorney Rice directly at 770-865-8654 to discuss your options. Thank you.

To read the full press release, please see the following link:

FDA informs companies that the agency is not approving their PMA applications and that they will have to remove their products from the market

04/15/2019

We represent Plaintiff's in many types of Premises Liability Cases so call now to speak with Attorney Rice at 770-865-8654 to discuss your legal situation (whether or not it is a slip and fall).

Oak Grove Resources, LLC v. Director, OWCP, No. 17-14468 (11th Cir. 2019): The Eleventh Circuit held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision that one of the mining company's former miners was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. In regard to the Act's automatic entitlement provision in 30 U.S.C. 932(l), the court held that "at the time of his or her death" modifies the adjective "eligible," such that survivors' entitlement to benefits depends on whether the miner was eligible before his or her death, not whether, by that time, the pertinent decisionmaker had formally determined the miner to be so. In this case, two surviving spouses qualified for survivor benefits under 932(l)'s automatic-entitlement provision because their husbands were eligible for benefits under the Act at the times of their respective deaths and despite the fact that the men were only thereafter formally determined to be eligible.

To read the full court case, then please see this link:

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a bill under consideration by the Texas legislature that would require appointment of an attorney ad litem to represent an unborn child during a judicial bypass proceeding for an abortion for a pregnant minor. Grossman describes the l...

04/15/2019

At Julie A. Rice, Attorney at Law, & Affiliates, you may call me directly, Julie Rice, at 770-865-8654, to discuss your legal issues. As shown by the case below, we represent Plaintiff's in slip and fall cases as well as many other Premises Liability Cases that can occur from dangerous conditions in an area that is not well lit, slip and falls in grocery stores, malls, etc. and other types of Premises Liability such objects falling off the high shelf in a hardware or large commercial establishment that stores inventory that has to be removed with a special cart. These are just a few of what constitutes Premises Liability, and there are many more under the Laws in the State of Georgia.

This is the summary of a recent case. The link below can be used to read the case in its entirety.

Guevara v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., No. 17-14889 (11th Cir. 2019).

After plaintiff slipped and fell as he stepped down from a landing located on the outer deck of a cruise ship operated by NCL, he filed suit alleging that NCL negligently failed to warn passengers of the step down, and negligent failed to maintain and inspect the lighting in the area.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking a portion of the expert's First Supplemental Report and the entirety of the Second Supplemental Report. However, the court held that plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding NCL's prior notice of the dangerous condition posed by the step down.

Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the district court's ruling regarding the failure to warn claim. Finally, the court affirmed as to the negligent maintenance claim and held that the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff failed to create a triable issue of fact on whether NCL had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition posed by the unilluminated lightbulb.

To read the entire case and the court's findings, please see the following link:

After plaintiff slipped and fell as he stepped down from a landing located on the outer deck of a cruise ship operated by NCL, he filed suit alleging that NCL negligently failed to warn passengers of the step down, and negligent failed to maintain and inspect the lighting in the area.

04/15/2019

Lawsuit Says Women Being Held in Solitary for Minor Charges

“It is unacceptable in our modern era to isolate people with psychiatric disabilities in solitary confinement cells. But to jail women charged with low-level misdemeanors in these conditions for months on end is particularly pointless and cruel,” said Sarah Geraghty, managing attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights.By Katheryn Tucker | April 11, 2019 at 03:07 PM

Civil rights lawyers have filed a suit in federal court against the Fulton County sheriff’s office alleging that women with psychological disturbances are being held for solitary confinement in filthy cells without access to the help provided to men in similar circumstances.

The Georgia Advocacy Office and the Southern Center for Human Rights filed the lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against Sheriff Ted Jackson and other officials charged with detaining women at the South Fulton Jail. The sheriff’s public information officer said Thursday by email, “We are reserving comment at this time due to pending litigation.”

“This is an action to protect some of the most vulnerable women in the Fulton County Jail system from serious psychological harm, cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, and invidious discrimination,” said the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division Wednesday. “Defendants incarcerate over 200 women at the South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail, a facility in Union City, Georgia, used to hold women prosecuted in Fulton County courts. Many of those women—at least half, by most estimates—experience psychiatric disabilities. Neither staffed nor trained to manage the large number of detainees experiencing psychiatric disabilities, Fulton County jailers respond to symptoms of mental illness by confining women with psychiatric disabilities in isolation cells for months on end.”

The named plaintiffs are identified only as M.J. and K.H. The complaint said they are being held in isolation “solely because of their psychiatric disabilities.”

“Like many other women, M.J. and K.H. are charged with minor, nonviolent offenses, but they remain in solitary confinement indefinitely due to Defendants’ policies and practices,” the complaint said.

M.J. is a 20-year-old homeless woman, the GAO and the Southern Center said in a news release Thursday. She was arrested over five months ago on a charge of criminal trespass for allegedly refusing to leave the West End Mall when asked. She has a $500 bond but is unable to afford it. She is locked in what is called a “mental health pod” alone for over 23 hours a day on average, sometimes 24 hours for days on end, the Southern Center said. The complaint said isolation intensifies symptoms of mental illness.

The complaint said a recent tour of the jail revealed women kept in unclean cells, sometimes with toilets overflowing onto the floor. “Many are unresponsive. Some of those that do speak mutter incoherently,” the complaint said.

If the women are found incompetent to stand trial, they are held there indefinitely, while men in the same circumstances are offered assistance to recover, the complaint said.

“For male detainees only, Defendants offer a competency restoration program at the main jail facility, allowing men promptly to enter a therapeutic environment with full days of structured programming, counseling, and group activities supervised by on-site psychiatrists and other clinicians skilled in competency restoration,” the complaint said. “By contrast, women deemed incompetent to stand trial are not provided jail-based competency restoration programs. Instead, they are forced to languish in isolation cells for 23 to 24 hours per day while they wait for beds to open at one of the few state-run hospitals. This process can take many months due to a lengthy waiting list for the limited number of state hospital beds.”

“It is unacceptable in our modern era to isolate people with psychiatric disabilities in solitary confinement cells. But to jail women charged with low-level misdemeanors in these conditions for months on end is particularly pointless and cruel,” Sarah Geraghty, managing attorney at the Southern Center for Human Rights, said in the news release.

“Society would never tolerate these conditions in any other setting,” Devon Orland, director of litigation at the Georgia Advocacy Office, said in the news release. “With a responsive community mental health system these women would likely have not ended up incarcerated. As long as they are held in this setting, the Defendants have a responsibility to ensure that they receive appropriate treatment in a humane environment.”


To read the full story, please see the following link: https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2019/04/11/lawsuit-says-women-being-held-in-solitary-for-minor-charges/?kw=Lawsuit%20Says%20Women%20Being%20Held%20in%20Solitary%20for%20Minor%20Charges&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=amalert&utm_content=20190412&utm_term=dro

“It is unacceptable in our modern era to isolate people with psychiatric disabilities in solitary confinement cells. But to jail women charged with low-level misdemeanors in these conditions for months on end is particularly pointless and cruel,” said Sarah Geraghty, managing attorney at the Sou...

04/08/2019

The key word here is that the Guards can be sued. The State can always be sued in a Section 1983 Action and it is difficult. This case takes it one step further and places the Guard in legal jeopardy.

Eleventh Circuit Rules Guards Can Be Sued for Ignoring Medical Needs

“Almus Taylor died from internal bleeding after being kept in a jail holding cell overnight,” Judge Ronald Gilman said. “If Almus was begging for medical help, crying out in pain, and informing the guards that he was dying, then a reasonable jury could conclude that a lay person would recognize the need for a doctor’s attention.”

By Katheryn Tucker | April 04, 2019 at 03:23 PM

Judge Ronald Lee Gilman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Photo: Federal Bar Association) Judge Ronald Lee Gilman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Photo: Federal Bar Association)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has reversed a federal judge and ruled that qualified immunity does not shield jail guards from claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of people in custody.

The opinion released Monday means a father’s lawsuit over the death of his son can go to a jury.

Visiting Senior Judge Ronald Gilman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Memphis wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Gerald Tjoflat and Kevin Newsom.

“Almus Taylor died from internal bleeding after being kept in a jail holding cell overnight,” Gilman began. His opinion was 11 pages—shorter than most from that court and notably direct, reversing the district judge on every point.

The decision revives the lawsuit filed by Bonny Edward Taylor, Almus’ father and the administrator of Almus’ estate. The father sued the jail guards for deprivation of his son’s civil rights, alleging that they were “deliberately indifferent to Almus’ serious medical needs.” The complaint was made under 42 U.S.Code § 1983 and Alabama state law.

Judge Keith Starrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi in Hattiesburg, filling in on a then-shorthanded Middle District of Alabama, dismissed the case on the basis of qualified immunity and state-agent immunity.

Mike Crow of Beasley Allen. Mike Crow of Beasley Allen
“We’re just glad that they’ve seen fit to reverse it,” said Mike Crow of Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles in Montgomery and Atlanta. Crow represented the Taylor family, along with J. Parker Miller and Dana Taunton of Beasley Allen.

“I told the clients what happened today, and they were elated that we’ll be going forward,” Crow said Wednesday. “We told them all along we thought the judge was totally wrong.”

But he also told the family they were “fighting an uphill battle.” Reversing a trial judge is always difficult—even more so with a Section 1983 civil rights claim, he said. Still, Crow added, “We think we’ve got a good set of facts to get a reversal.”

The guards were defended by Fred Clements Jr., James McNeill and Joshua Willis of Webb & Eley in Montgomery. They could not be reached immediately.

The story started on the night of Nov. 16, 2013. Almus Taylor had spent the day with friends at his deer-hunting club in south Alabama, according to Crow. They had been working on the property, cooking, eating and drinking beer. He was staying in a cabin 6 miles away. He wanted to go back there and take a shower then return to the club to watch the University of Alabama football game. The Crimson Tide were playing Mississippi State, starting at 7:45 p.m, according to the Alabama schedule.

At about 7 p.m., Taylor started down the dirt road with high banks on each side, according to Crow. About a mile away, Taylor hit a bank. He was thrown out, and so were his two hunting dogs—Black and Tan Coonhounds with long floppy ears, a mother and a puppy. He managed to get his pickup truck back on the road and was trying to get the dogs back in it when he collapsed. Along came a Covington County sheriff’s deputy, who found Taylor lying across the seat, unable to walk. The truck was scratched up and so was Taylor. The driver’s side door was in the back. The deputy called for emergency medical services and the Alabama Highway Patrol, who soon arrived. But Taylor refused to get into the ambulance to go to a hospital “unless he could bring his dogs,” Gilman said. The EMS team members said no to the dogs and asked him instead to sign a release refusing services. He couldn’t sign. So they gave him a pen and “accepted Almus making a mark on the form.”

The Taylor family did also sue the EMS, which settled out of the case after paying a confidential amount of money, according to Crow.

After the EMS left, the trooper arrested Taylor for driving under the influence and took him to the county jail, arriving at 9:33 p.m. Gilman said Almus Taylor “appeared highly intoxicated and had to be assisted while walking to the holding cell.” The guards said the trooper told them Almus was “medically cleared” and “just drunk.”

The family would later learn that Almus Taylor had three broken ribs, a lacerated liver and a punctured lung, Crow said.

The guards and other witnesses gave different accounts of his condition, but either way, it’s clear things only worsened during the night, Gilman said.

“Other detainees reported that Almus spent several hours moaning, crying out in pain and begging for medical help. Almus was allegedly told by the guards to ‘shut up.’ The guards, however, claim that Almus seemed fine and was just breathing heavily and moaning,” Gilman said.

“If Almus was begging for medical help, crying out in pain and informing the guards that he was dying, then a reasonable jury could conclude that a lay person would recognize the need for a doctor’s attention,” Gilman said. “In addition, a jury could conclude that the guards’ willful disregard of what they heard and observed during the night made them deliberately indifferent to Almus’ serious medical needs.”

Gilman said the district court “also erred by requiring Bonny to present evidence that the guards knew the cause of Almus’ injury and the specific nature of Almus’ medical problem.” Gilman quoted Starrett’s dismissal order concluding that, even if the guards “were aware of the cries of pain … made during the night, the risk of internal bleeding was not ‘so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.’”

Gilman dispensed with Starrett’s position by ruling that “a guard does not need to know a detainee’s specific medical condition to be deliberately indifferent to his or her serious medical need.”

“Substantial risk of serious harm” is enough for liability to attach, Gilman said.

“Almus’ guards could therefore have been liable for deliberate indifference if Almus had been suffering from, say, appendicitis or another condition that was totally unrelated to the car crash if they ignored Almus’ cries for help and medical attention,” Gilman said. “In other words, a jury could find that a reasonable lay person, witnessing an individual crying out in pain for several hours and stating that he was ‘dying’ and ‘broke up’ inside, would recognize that a doctor’s attention was necessary to address whatever health problem the individual might be experiencing.”

Almus Taylor finally was taken away by ambulance after a nurse arrived for a 6 a.m. shift and found him spitting up blood, Gilman said. But it was too late.

“Almus died on his way to the hospital from internal bleeding,” Gilman said.

He was 38, according to the family’s lawyer.

Crow said he looks forward to taking the case to a jury. He said he just hopes he gets a different judge.

The case is Taylor v. Hughes and Blue, No. 17-14772.

The following link is for the entire story:

“Almus Taylor died from internal bleeding after being kept in a jail holding cell overnight,” Judge Ronald Gilman said. “If Almus was begging for medical help, crying out in pain, and informing the guards that he was dying, then a reasonable jury could conclude that a lay person would recogniz...