X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Jessie Dorado, in her individual capacity, as mother and next friend of Brianna Alexis Miranda, and on behalf of the estate of Dr. Eduardo Miranda (referred to as Miranda), sued the El Paso County. Dorado alleged that Miranda, her husband, died after he was denied access to his seizure medication following his arrest for outstanding traffic warrants and subsequent detention in the El Paso County Detention Facility. At the time of his booking, Miranda informed jail personnel he had a history of convulsions. He did not inform them, however, that he was under medication for the condition. In addition, according to the court of appeals’ opinion, Miranda made false statements to the intake person during the booking process. Miranda indicated that he was unemployed and provided an incorrect address. Miranda told Nurse Juan Carlos Dominguez during the second day of his incarceration that he was under physician’s orders to take two milligrams of Ativan each night to control his seizures. This was untrue, according to the court of appeals’ opinion. Miranda was self-prescribing a much higher dose of the medication, according to the court of appeals’ opinion. Dominguez contacted Dr. Harold Block, the jail physician, for further instructions. Block gave orders to give Miranda his prescribed medications, which was done. Miranda did not receive his medication the next day because he failed to respond when summoned to receive it at 8 p.m. Around 11:30 p.m., Miranda suffered a seizure. He was moved from his cell to the jail clinic for treatment and was transported to the hospital, but died less than an hour after his seizure. Dorado sued for damages pursuant to the Texas Wrongful Death Act and the Survival Statute and for constitutional deprivations under 42 U.S.C. �1983. The county filed a plea to the jurisdiction based upon the lack of applicability of the Wrongful Death Act to counties. The trial court denied the plea and the county appealed. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of the county regarding the question of applicability of the wrongful death statute to counties. The county filed a motion for new trial which was overruled by operation of law. The county then appealed from the jury verdict rendering judgment against the county under 42 U.S.C. �1983. HOLDING:The court reverses the judgment of the trial court and renders judgment in favor of the county. When analyzing a �1983 claim against a municipality or governmental entity, the court notes that it must decide if the governmental entity promulgated “an official policy, practice, or custom,” which could subject it to �1983 liability. The court finds that the facts of this case do not present an official policy under these definitions. The court holds that there is no constitutional requirement that municipalities provide jailers and law enforcement personnel with sophisticated medical training so that they will detect hidden medical problems. The court determines that the county, therefore, was not required to train its jailers how to recognize the ambiguous signs of drug dependency or drug overdose. The court finds that it cannot be inferred that any additional training of or screening by the jail staff would have prevented Miranda’s seizure from his self-induced abuse of medication. At the time of his arrest, Miranda failed to identify the nature of his medical condition in a truthful manner. The jail personnel responded to the information provided to them by Miranda. The court states that it is unreasonable to require that the jail personnel ascertain when an individual does not disclose the extent of his drug dependency. As to appellees’ claims that the county failed to provide Miranda proper medical care, the court points out that the county did in fact provide Miranda with prompt medical care when jail personnel were informed of Miranda’s need for medication. The court notes that when Miranda suffered his seizure, the jail nurses responded to the medical emergency and immediately took action by contacting Block, moving Miranda to the jail clinic, administering medication as instructed by Block and contacting emergency medical service to transport Miranda to the hospital when the jail personnel determined he was not breathing. Based upon these facts, the court finds as a matter of law that the county’s policies neither deprived Miranda of adequate medical assistance, nor violated the 14th Amendment’s required level of care. Appellees next argue that the conduct or lack of action of several jail personnel establishes a showing of deliberate indifference to the needs of Miranda such as to create liability under the Texas Tort Claims Act. A plaintiff may establish municipal liability under �1983 by proving a violation of constitutional rights by an action pursuant to official municipal policy or pursuant to misconduct so pervasive among non-policy-making employees of the municipality as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law. But the court finds that the county’s policies provided for numerous opportunities for Miranda to receive medical care or treatment while an inmate in its facility. Miranda, however, presented an inaccurate description of his medical history and previous use of the medication Ativan. The court concludes that although appellees’ detailed sixth amended petition identifies a long list of complaints regarding the conduct of EPCDF employees and the medical personnel assigned to the jail, the allegations, taken as a whole, do not complain of a policy that establishes unconstitutional treatment of the decedent and, at most, amount to a series of specific complaints of negligence. OPINION:Barajas, C.J.; Barajas, C.J., McClure, and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.