by Douglas Ankney

On June 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of qualified immunity to two registered nurses, Diana Snow and Christina Watson, who were employed by the Lake County Detention Center (“Jail”) when prisoner Randy Wiertella died at the Jail. Plaintiff Dennis Wiertella, the Administrator of the Estate of Randy Wiertella (“Plaintiff”) brought suit against Lake County, Snow, and Watson via 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging, inter alia, that Wiertella’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Snow and Watson.

Wiertella was booked into the Jail on December 2, 2018, after being sentenced by the Willoughby Municipal Court to 27 days in the Jail for drug possession and illegal transport of a firearm. A guard recorded on a medical screening form that Wiertella “entered the Jail without any of his medications,” which Wiertella took “for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and a psychiatric disorder.” The medical screening form stated “Wiertella’s medications needed to be continuously administered.”

Snow was responsible for ensuring that every Jail prisoner’s medical screening form was reviewed. Watson received and signed Wiertella’s medical screening form on December 2, 2018. She was aware that Wiertella was “booked without any medications” and that he had been taking “essential medications” that “needed to be continuously administered.” But Watson ordered no medications on that date.

The next day, Watson received Wiertella’s request form asking for his “diabetic and other meds.” Watson then ordered the diabetic medication and a Jail doctor then signed off on Watson’s order for diabetic medication and a diabetic diet. But no other medications were ordered.

Later that same day, Wiertella sent another request form, asking for his five other medications, including his high blood pressure medication. Two days later, Wiertella sent another request for his high blood pressure medication and suggested to the Jail’s medical staff that they contact the Veterans Administration (“VA”) pharmacy in Wasau, Wisconsin to get the record of his medications.

But no one contacted the VA pharmacy. Watson testified that she had been trained by Snow to treat only Wiertella’s diabetes, classifying it as his “most important” medical condition. She did not treat his other medical conditions even though nothing prevented her from doing so. Watson testified that the Jail “preferred for inmates to get a friend or family member to bring in their medications because medications could be expensive for the Jail to order through the pharmacy.”

While the ability to request to see the nurses was available seven days per week and the doctor was available Monday through Friday each week, Wiertella was not scheduled to have sick call until December 10, 2018, to have his blood pressure checked. Oddly, this was done even though nurses may check blood pressure at the Jail at any time on any day. Wiertella was never scheduled for a physical exam or a review of his medical history. Wiertella was discovered in his cell non responsive. He was pronounced dead at 3:12 a.m. on December 10, 2018.

Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Jonathan Arden, concluded the cause of death was “hypertensive cardiovascular disease.” He opined that, but for the failure to provide Wiertella with his medications and a CPAP machine, “Wiertella would not have died how and when he did.”

Snow and Watson moved for summary judgment, asserting they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion and they appealed.

The Sixth Circuit observed that it has “jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of the district courts” and “interlocutory appeals from the denial of qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage are considered ‘final decision[s]’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 1291.” Because such appeals are limited to only questions of law, the “defendant appealing a denial of qualified immunity must concede to the plaintiff’s facts.” 

To overcome a defendant’s claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: (1) a violation of a constitutional right and (2) that governing case law clearly established that right at the time of the violation. In the Sixth Circuit, a failure-to-protect claim arising from conduct that occurred before 2021 is governed by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).

Farmer’s two-prong test requires first that the plaintiff demonstrate an objectively serious medical need. In the instant case, all parties agreed that Wiertella had demonstrated an objectively serious medical need.

The second prong requires a showing that the “officer knew of the facts creating the substantial risk of serious harm,” that “the officer believed that this substantial risk existed,” and that “the officer responded to the risk in an unreasonable way.” This prong was satisfied by Watson’s knowledge of Wiertella’s essential medications that needed to be continuously administered and her failure to order them or take any steps to secure them.Because Snow was responsible for ensuring that Jail medical screening forms are reviewed, a jury could conclude that she, too, was aware of Wiertella’s substantial risk of harm and responded unreasonably.

And the right to timely receive medications was clearly established in Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights, 858 F.3d 988 (6th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s order and remanded for further proceedings on the section 1983 claims. See: Wiertella v. Lake County, No. 24-3311 (6th Cir. 2025). 

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case