In re Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Cleveland, 2010 OK 5 (Okla. 1/26/2010)

Decision Date26 January 2010
Docket NumberCase Number: 106374.
CitationIn re Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Cleveland, 2010 OK 5 (Okla. 1/26/2010), 2010 OK 5, Case Number: 106374. (Okla. Jan 26, 2010)
PartiesESTATE OF EVA JUNE CROWELL, DECEASED, by and through ANNA M. BOEN, Personal Representative, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF CLEVELAND, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEWAYNE BEGGS, as Sheriff of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma; DEPUTY JEANNE ANN BECK; DEPUTY KENNETH ALBRECHT; and CORPORAL MICHAEL STEVENSON, Employees of the Cleveland County Sheriff's Office, Defendants/Appellees, and DEPUTY APRIL LYNN CUMMINS and CORPORAL MICHAEL DEAN EASLEY, Defendants.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CLEVELAND COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMAHONORABLE TOM A. LUCAS, TRIAL JUDGE.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION III.

¶0Eva June Crowell died following an acute asthma attack that she suffered while incarcerated in the Cleveland County Jail.The personal representative of her estate brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 against the Board of County Commissioners of Cleveland County, the Sheriff of Cleveland County, and the sheriff's jail personnel on duty at the time of the attack.The personal representative alleged that Ms. Crowell's death was caused by unnecessary delay on the part of the sheriff's jail personnel in providing an inhaler to her.The defendants sought summary judgment on the ground that the delay in providing the inhaler was not actionable under § 1983, because the delay did not involve deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a prisoner.The trial court granted defendants' second motion for summary judgment, finding that the record showed no dispute of material fact on the issue of deliberate indifference.The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.The personal representative timely sought certiorari review by this Court.We hold that the personal representative failed to support a viable claim against the Board of County Commissioners and affirm the summary judgment in favor of the Board.However, the summary judgment record reveals a controversy upon which reasonable minds could differ on the issue of whether the sheriff and jail personnel acted with deliberate indifference in the delay to provide the inhaler.The summary judgment entered in favor of these defendants is reversed and the matter is remanded for trial.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; OPINION OF THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Albert J. Hoch, Jr. and Jeffrey S. Coe, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

David W. Lee, Lee Law Center, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees.

David J. Batton, Assistant District Attorney, Norman, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee Board of County Commissioners.

REIF, J.

¶1Eva June Crowell died following an acute asthma attack that she suffered while incarcerated in the Cleveland County Jail.At the time of the attack, jail personnel had possession of Ms. Crowell's inhaler.The personal representative of her estate has alleged that the jail personnel unnecessarily delayed furnishing Ms. Crowell the inhaler after being notified of her emergency need for it.The personal representative contends that this delay caused Ms. Crowell's death and violated her civil rights.Personal representative seeks damages from the Board of County Commissioners of Cleveland County, the Sheriff of Cleveland County and the jail employees on duty at the time of the asthma attack.

¶2The defendants moved for summary judgment.They contended the delay in providing the inhaler was not actionable under § 1983, because the delay did not involve deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of a prisoner.Defendants supported this contention with evidentiary materials that showed a jail employee arrived with the inhaler at Ms. Crowell's cell pod around four minutes after the emergency call.At that point, Ms. Crowell had stopped breathing and could not use the inhaler.

¶3 In response, the personal representative presented evidentiary material showing that the decedent's cell mate told jail employees that the decedent was in emergency distress up to twenty minutes or more prior to the time when the jail employee arrived with the inhaler; that a head count was continued after notification of the emergency; and that by the time a sheriff's employee arrived with the decedent's inhaler, the decedent could not use the inhaler because she was no longer breathing.

¶4 Although finding the personal representative's evidentiary material raised a question of fact as to the negligence of the sheriff's office, the trial court ruled it did not show deliberate indifference or raise a question of fact sufficient to withstand a demurrer to the evidence or motion for directed verdict on the issue of deliberate indifference.The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.The Court of Civil Appeals agreed that the record showed no dispute of material fact regarding deliberate indifference, and affirmed.

¶5 Upon certiorari, we have considered the evidentiary material in the light most favorable to the personal representative and hold that material questions of fact are in dispute surrounding the length of time and circumstances of the response to the emergency call.Therefore, the issue of whether the sheriff and jail personnel acted with deliberate indifference cannot not be decided on summary judgment.However, the evidentiary material shows no basis for a claim against the Board of County Commissioners as a matter of law, and we hold that summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the Board.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶6Eva Crowell was booked into the Cleveland County jail on August 4, 1999.During booking, Ms. Crowell reported that she had asthma and took Albuterol.The sheriff's office initial plan and progress notes indicate that Albuterol was the only medication that had been brought in for Ms. Crowell at the time of her transfer from the Oklahoma City jail.According to the jail medication administration record for August 1999, Ms. Crowell's medical instructions included two puffs on the Albuterol Inhaler four times a day.The record shows that the inhaler was provided four times a day from August 5 through August 19.According to the jail's progress notes, on August 9, 1999, Ms. Crowell complained about "not being able to get her inhaler during the night if she needs it," and that the amount given to her was not enough.Another notation indicates Ms. Crowell had reported that she usually has some breathing difficulty at night.

¶7 On August 20, 1999, a notation in the medication administration record indicates that the Albuterol instruction was changed to "AS NEEDED."A second notation instructed that the Albuterol Inhaler was to be provided four times a day if needed within a 24 hour period, along with the following admonition: "(DO NOT MAKE HER WAIT — for scheduled med time)."Pursuant to the Oklahoma Department of Health State Jail Standards,2 Ms. Crowell was not allowed to keep her inhaler in her cell.The inhaler was stored in a locked cabinet in a medical room, as provided by the Detention Manual.3The medical room was located on the second floor of the jail.The pod where Ms. Crowell was incarcerated was on the first floor of the jail.

¶8 Ms. Crowell's inhaler had been changed from "scheduled only" medication to "as needed" medication on August 20 because she had been needing the inhaler around 2:30 to 3:00 a.m. for the preceding three or four days.According to reports of interviews conducted by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation,4 there had been discussions about keeping Ms. Crowell's inhaler in the North Control, by the inmate pod, in case she needed it and the medical rover was not on the floor.5The North Control had a door which could be opened into the sally port, and a deputy could open the door and give the inhaler to Ms. Crowell as needed.Additional information in the record indicates that from the first day of her incarceration, Ms. Crowell had begged the jail nurse to give her free access to her inhaler in case of emergency.6Additional information indicates that she had a history of asthma attacks whereby she needed her inhaler.7Other evidentiary material indicates that Ms. Crowell had a similar incident to the asthma attack of August 25, on a previous stay at the jail, and that emergency services had to be called.8

¶9 At the time of Ms. Crowell's asthma attack, Deputy Jeanne Beck was working as a north control deputy in the north control booth on the second floor of the jail.9Deputy Michael Easley was the shift supervisor, working as a detention corporal in booking.Deputy April Cummins was the med rover on duty at the time of the asthma attack.Deputy Kenneth Albrecht was working as a detention deputy, and Deputy Michael Stevenson was working as a detention corporal in the master control on the first floor.

¶10 The record shows significant discrepancies in the details of the circumstances on the morning of Ms. Crowell's fatal asthma attack on August 25, 1999.Deputy Beck stated that she received a call for Ms. Crowell's inhaler at 2:38 a.m., and that she noted the time on her log.Deputy Beck said she called the medical rover, Deputy Cummins, who was on the first floor conducting a head count.According to Deputy Beck, Deputy Cummins told Deputy Beck she would be there "in a minute."Deputy Beck related she knew Deputy Cummins was aware of Ms. Crowell's asthma problem.Deputy Beck stated that at 2:40 a.m., she heard Ms. Crowell's cell mate, Judith Hall, say that Ms. Crowell was turning blue.At 2:41 a.m., Deputy Beck said that she radioed her colleagues, "guys, get up here now."Deputy Beck stated that a few seconds after the call, Corporal Michael Easley and Deputy April Cummins arrived at the gate to the day room where Ms. Crowell was lying on the floor.Deputy Beck said she had no medical...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
20 cases
  • Bosh v. Cherokee Cnty. Bldg. Auth.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 12, 2013
    ...City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 576 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). 40. See also, Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Cleveland, 2010 OK 5, 237 P.3d 134 (Recognizing that a §1983 action for the failure of prison officials to respond to an inmates me......
  • Payne v. Kerns
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 12, 2020
    ...of Civil Appeals decision and reversed in part the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment. Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners, 2010 OK 5, 237 P.3d 134. We held reasonable minds could differ on the issue of whether the sheriff and jail personnel acted with deli......
  • Bryson v. Okla. County Ex Rel. Okla. County Det. Ctr.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 30, 2011
    ...Valley Elec. Coop., Inc., 1990 OK 43, ¶ 14, 792 P.2d 50, 55. 8. These allegations distinguish this case from Estate of Crowell v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 2010 OK 5, 237 P.3d 134, in which the alleged failure to provide adequate medical care resulted in the death of a prisoner. The record est......
  • Bosh v. Cherokee Cnty. Bldg. Auth.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 28, 2013
    ...City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). 41. See also, Estate of Crowell v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Cleveland, 2010 OK 5, 237 P.3d 134 (Recognizing that a § 1983 action for the failure of prison officials to respond to an inmates me......
  • Get Started for Free